User talk:Retired username/Archive11

J.P. Calderon
Hi, I noticed that you closed the afd for J.P. Calderon with a no consesus. I'm not very familiar with afd policy, so what does that mean? Can the article be put back up for afd? Thanks, Scorpion 20:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can technically re-nominate whenever you want, but it's best to present new evidence/arguments if you nominate again immedietly, not just "go for round two" of AfD and rehash the old discussion. Most people would suggest waiting at least a month for re-nominating if there's no compelling new evidence to present. "No consensus" means that I didn't find a consensus to delete, typically defined as 2/3 of the participants voting for deletion. See Guide to deletion for much more. --W.marsh 20:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

GRH3
With regards to George Randolph Hearst III. The AfD was closed with keep. But the talk page says no consensus (as opposed to keep). Is that normal? -- Ben (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

George Randolph Hearst III
Hello! In your closing of the AfD on George Randolph Hearst III, you confused me. In closing the debate, you state the result was "keep". When you a few seconds later edit the talk page, you state the result was "no consensus". What's up with that? (I'd rather see it as "no consensus" as then I have some basis for re-nominating it in a few months or so - but if it's a keep I don't think I'll bother.) Jobjörn  (Talk ° contribs) 22:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see now that Ben had a similar concern. Sorry for the double-post, then. Jobjörn  (Talk ° contribs) 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm I dunno, I intended to close it as a keep. What's on the AfD is more important than what's on the talk page, which is unofficial, I just made a mistake apparently. I'll admit this one really could have gone either way, from a pure numerical standpoint at least it could have been either. But I did intend it as a keep. At any rate, it really shouldn't matter that much with a future AfD whether it was a no consensus or a keep. --W.marsh 22:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain what you mean by "from a pure numerical standpoint?" -- Ben (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * More than 66% or so of people wanting to keep is a rule of thumb for a "keep" closure. In the end only 2 people actually wanted to delete the article outright. But it's just a rule of thumb... the numbers alone don't determine the result. --W.marsh 22:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And thanks for the earlier response, too. -- Ben (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/New Silent Generation
Is there any particular reason that this was closed as 'no consensus' rather than being relisted to generate a more thorough debate?--Nydas (Talk) 08:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I usually just relist if there's been very little discussion (none or 1-2 comments), the article was improved after most people commented, or someone specifically requests relisting. It wouldn't be numerically a very good idea to relist every "no consensus" debate. --W.marsh 16:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Penn Singers
Hello. You closed the Penn Singers RfD as 'no consensus', but this article was deleted before, and the Penn students put the article back up. Can you look at the previous deletion history, please? Just because a number of Penn students want an article on their theatre group doesn't distinguish it from the thousands of other student theatre groups, and WP guidelines do not support articles on such groups. As noted by even some voting "keep", the appropriate place to mention this theatre group is in the University of Pennsylvania article. Thanks -- Ssilvers 21:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Yes, you can verify that it exists, but it does not meet the notability standards of WP guidelines, e.g., WP:MUS and WP:ORG. Should every student group that has been the subject of an article in the school paper have an article in Wikipedia? Does WP intend to be that broad in scope? Also, if an article is deleted, should its proponents simply be able to put it back up and wait for the next AfD to see if they have worn out the people who want to keep WP encyclopedic? -- Ssilvers 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * it can be merged to the Penn. article without an AfD though. There wasn't a clear consensus to delete this time around, I would have overruled that if there had been verifiability problems, but there didn't seem to be. --W.marsh 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Recent AfD Closures
Hi,

Just a quick note to say that I have been looking at some of the AfD debates that you have been closing recently ( Penn Singers, Village School Charlottesville, etc ), and am disturbed by what seems to me to be your strong personal bias towards retention. Although I am not inclined to challenge any of these AfD closings myself, this is to let you know that if other people decide to challenge them I will certainly re-examine the relevant debates and may give my support to deletion review.

More generally I have read your user page, which outlines a clear view of the Wikipedia project which you characterise as "inclusionist". My general aim is to "assume good faith" with all editors of Wikipedia, however they characterise themselves, but I should say that your recent decisions, particularly in the Village School Charlottesville case, have made this impossible, and I do not have substantial confidence in your ability to close AfD debates in an unbiased manner at present. Perhaps if other people voice the same sentiments to you you may wish to take a break from this activity.

This is not, of course, in any way meant to reflect on you in a personal way, but simply refers to your recent activity in closing AfD debates, where a clear pattern seems to me to be visible. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss this ( or any other matters ) further.

Sincerely,

WMMartin 16:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See, this is why I didn't have a user page for so long... guess I'll axe it again now. People see that word and assume you are some villain out to close every AfD is a keep. That's not what I do, if you look at my record. Do you also have a problem with closers of AfDs who openly call themselves deletionists? Some of the most active AfD closers (historically) are deletionists. Anyway, I dunno, you should probably also understand that no one else is really closing difficult AfDs right now, so if I stop, they won't get closed for a lot longer. I also rarely close AfDs in the first 24 hours they're eligible. I really only close AfDs when there's a backlog. If you have a problem with it, take it to DRV or RFC, but until someone else steps up and keeps AfD not backlogged, I am going to be closing 20-30 AfDs a day if I have the time. Anyway in the school AfD, it was 1/3 keep which is clearly within closer's discretion for a no consensus closure. In the close I even said it could be merged. --W.marsh 17:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Note on AfD closures
When you close AfDs, you might want to make sure that you remove the REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD template. I've been browsing some of the AfDs by category, and closed AfDs still show up in their categories when that template isn't removed. Thanks.

Oh, and on a non-admin note, how strongly do you feel about Climate of Minnesota having mention of its image in popular culture? I've read what you said at the FAC review, and I'm still debating it. On the one hand, Minnesota's image depends to a large degree on its weather extremes. (For example, Saturday's high here is supposed to be -1 Fahrenheit.) On the other hand, some of the "In popular culture" and "Trivia"-type sections in articles tend to include unencyclopedic details that can't really be verified and that don't have a lot of impact on the article one way or the other. It's possible that a few pop-culture references (like the Saint Paul Winter Carnival and Fargo (film) might lead people to add references to every single movie that has had a Minnesota winter scene, or every tiny little winter festival. Any thoughts?  --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I leave the AfD templates in on purpose... they could be removed/handled by a bot or smarter template, it's a bad idea to thrust extra, purely robotic work onto AfD closers, when there's such a backlog at AfD always.
 * Anyway, I feel like part of being out best work, as FAs are, is to be a complete, encyclopedic coverage of a topic. A good technical summary is certainly a major part of a featured article, but I just can't see an article being our best work unless it gives people a really useful, complete picture of a topic. In this case, a big thing about the climate of Minnesota is that, well, it is widely known for its extremes, particularly the harsh winters. To have an article not mention this strikes me as just being incomplete. I dislike "in pop culture" sections personally, and am not saying such a section in the climate article should consist of a bulleted list of 50 lame TV and movie jokes about Minnesota winters being awful... not at all. But to me, an article that doesn't explain the cultural importance of it's topic (if there is any general importance) is like an article on television that wonderfully explains how a TV set works, but just stops there and never mentions that television important part of culture in most industrial countries, and has fundamentally changed mass media and communication. Someone reading an article, even if they know nothing of the topic, should get all the relevent, general information on it so that they will really have a concise understanding of what the topic is all about... that's our "best" work. --W.marsh 05:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Robert Benfer. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Esn 04:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Your work in AfD
Hi, I appreciate greatly your work on AfD closings, but I have to say that you nearly always forget to remove the  template after closing them.

Happy Editing by  Snowolf (talk) on  14:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't forget... see a few threads up. I object to these templates... I never asked for them. --W.marsh 14:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Dayton Family followup
You noted when you closed out Articles for deletion/The Dayton Family as a copyvio delete, that you would be willing to undelete the related album articles if the article was recreated. It appears Blackdragon6 has done so last month, so I hope you'll go ahead with the undeletion. Welcome to the Dopehouse, F.B.I. (album), What's On My Mind? -- Groggy Dice T | C 00:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * done --W.marsh 20:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

2nd Calderon nomination
Hi. I hate to drag you into a mess and am only doing so because you closed the first nom and the re-nominator is invoking your response to him as justification for his actions. I am wondering if the renomination can be closed now. It is nothing more than "round two" of the first nomination and has degenerated to the point of veiled accusations of sock puppetry. It's begun spilling over into other discussions and it's just at its root poisonous all around. Otto4711 22:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I hope it's clear I didn't mean for him to do what he did, I was just assuming he'd realize I was all but saying another AfD immediately was a bad idea, even if not technically forbidden by policy. Anyway, I do not believe I personally should close the AfD early because A) it doesn't meet WP:SK, the criteria for an early close, and B) but mostly, as I closed the first AfD as (effectively) a keep, the second AfD would probably seem more valid if an admin other than me closed it. Sorry, not the answer you wanted to hear, but just letting it run a few more days will hopefully put this to bed. If he renominates, or continues to bug you away from the AfD, it should probably be brought up at WP:AN/I as potential disruption, but right now I'm not seeing it on this case alone, although you can see what other admins on AN/I think. It looks like he's in some other controversies too, but I'm about to head out for the night, sorry I couldn't be more helpful tonight. --W.marsh 22:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, no worries, I don't hold you responsible for his actions. Thanks for your input. Perhaps when this one closes he'll stop. Otto4711 00:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Cat page
I was wondering if you could change my page title back to just "Zippy and Zoe" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leoweiman (talk • contribs) 05:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Sorry, it really shouldn't be an article... articles need to be based on things written about in published sources. But the page was too cute to delete so I moved it to your user space, where you have more leeway to write about what you want. --W.marsh 05:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Village School Charlottesville Virginia. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   11:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is requested
I have initiated a discussion at Mediation Cabal/Cases/Citing sources. Your comment is requested. Thanks!  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 01:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm far from perfect, but as a researcher, scholar and student that must cite all sources in my papers and reports, it's second nature that I extend that professionalism and courtesy to Wikipedia. Sorry if you have a problem with me disagreeing with something that has importance to me, and something that I take quite seriously.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 07:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLI
Thank you for protecting this! I was afraid that there may be a high amount of vandalism to this article, especially after the Superbowl. Should people wait until the game is over to make such edits? Real96 20:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I saw that you unprotected the article. Thanks anyway. Real96 20:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I unprotected it. If vandalism gets bad we'll protect it again. But this is just semi-protection, logged in users will still be able to edit normally. --W.marsh 20:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest re-protecting. Seems one person (i.e. you) should be able to keep up with the stats.  There is a pretty high volume of edits right now, hard to keep up with. John Reaves (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There's been basically no vandalism right now, less than even I'd expected. Protection won't help the article's stats update more quickly, unfortunately. But I will protect if vandalism picks up (which it almost certainly will). --W.marsh 00:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was going to increase this to edit=auto,move=sysop, but saw your last protection comment, do you think it's worth it to loose the good faith anon edits? — xaosflux  Talk  00:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at this point... it's manageable, but it's getting close, but I still think it's okay to allow anons to edit. With many admins on this article we should probably protect by rough consensus... if others think it's time, I won't object. --W.marsh 00:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's starting to get bad. At least five occurrences since you left.  Real96 01:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

PREGAME ENTERTAINMENT
Thank you for your interest in my post. Waddy plays a regular show on Monday nights in L.A. and told us about the show. Evidently CBS aired a performance of "Stand Back" a little before 1:30 PST....Take care in Kentucky :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donnarq1 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Superbowl
Thanks for the edits and sorry about putting the article in present tense. Didn't know it violated MOS. And note that the "Bear's win" vandal not only is jumping the gun, but also has no idea how to use an apostrophe in the appropriate fashion. Peace out
 * That's cool... the tense thing is really no big deal, I was just going for something that sounded less awkward. --W.marsh 00:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Poor Wherebot
It's going to sleep well tonight! -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey at least he's a robot and used to such things... I just had to click delete about 30 times! --W.marsh 02:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Climate of Minnesota
Climate of Minnesota now has a 'in popular culture' section. Featured_article_candidates/Climate_of_Minnesota -Ravedave (Adopt a State) 15:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Diamond Bar Crunch
Thank you for removing incoming links before I got around to it. --NE2 20:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Hey W.marsh,

I just would like to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 54/13/11. I appreciate the trust expressed by members of the community, and will do my best to uphold it.

Naturally, I am still becoming accustomed to using the new tools, so if you have suggestions or feedback, or need anything please let me know. - Gilliam 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

James A. Runde
Hi, concerning this article on Suspected copyright violations. After I explained permissions and stuff on his talk, the editor has made a non copyvio version on James A. Runde/Temp. To speed things up a little for him, could you delete the copyvio and replace it with the temp version? Now we only have to worry if the person in question fails WP:Bio or not. :) Garion96 (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * okay, I did a basic move and the copyvio text should be gone. No opinion on the WP:BIO thing... would help if the article were better referenced though. On a mostly unrelated note, are you ready to take me up on the offer for an adminship nomination yet? Not that I mind fixing copyvios for you, but you might like being able to do it yourself. --W.marsh 21:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes please. The more I work on Wikipedia, the more I notice the admin tools would be real handy. Like in this case. So I will accept the nomination, and thanks again for the offer. Garion96 (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, cool. I hope to make the nomination tonight, if not tomorrow... I want to spend a bit of time on it to get everything right. --W.marsh 22:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was one flattering nomination, thanks. I accepted the nomination and it's now in WP:RFA. Garion96 (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, you deserve it. 1.5 years of good volunteer work... RfA is the one time the good guys actually get thanked for their work around here. Usually, at least. But I think yours will go well. --W.marsh 02:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations
Hi. The article "List of NCIS episodes" links to 85 individual episode articles. A few of them have no content. The rest have been copied for-for-word from the episode listing at tv.com - unless I am wrong and that site copied from Wikipedia (I don't think this is the case as the Wikipedia articles were made within the past week). I hope you are interested in lookng into it. Shaundakulbara 00:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC) The prods and other tags are being removed by the fans. I'm about ready to give up. Shaundakulbara 02:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If they are copyright violations from tv.com, which claimed a copyright last time I checked, then nominate them for speedy deletion. Otherwise... my personal opinion is that there's no harm in stub articles on TV shows, they'll grow eventually. But you can prod/afd if you like. --W.marsh 01:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Little glitches
You're right, it does now assert notability. Didn't at the time I speedied it though. :-) Philippe Beaudette 04:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

SCREW YOU
EVERYTHING I SAID IN MY ARTICLE WAS TRUE!!! IF I DIDN'T INTEND FOR WHAT I SAID TO BE TRUE, I WOULD NOT HAVE POSTED IT. I AM A TRUTHFULL PERSON. BRING MY ARTICLE BACK UP NOW, OR I WILL GIVE YOU WARNINGS UNTIL I SEE YOU IN COURT

-Love, Evan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roflevan (talk • contribs) 04:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Sudden Infant Dance Syndrome
You have misread Notability (music) which states "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart". This was a local radio station. I'm adding the speedy back. --Walter Görlitz 07:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

deletion cat template
Hi there,

I noticed that the " " tag was still in place here  after you closed the afd. Wasn't sure whether this was supposed to be there or not, so I thought I'd let you know, and you could either leave it or delete it! ConDem Talk 10:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Fusker
Hi did you ever aquire the fusker script you were asking about from user:Mikkel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mikkel#Fuskerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mikkel#Fusker) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clint Malarchuk (talk • contribs) 14:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean, sorry. I was just helping him include a link in that article. --W.marsh 15:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Vanishing Point (alternate reality game)
Howdy! I was wondering if you could explain in a little more detail why you decided to keep the article. In the AfD discussion, I think I replied to almost all the "keep" comments to ask why they supported the article. Few replied back. Only one user (the Hong Kong anon) was a fervent supporter of the article, and I even managed to convince him to vote "delete" in the end. Still the only sources cited in the article are the Neowin and Register forums. I'd say they're "non-trivial", but only marginally so. I've searched through a couple of news databases (including LexisNexis and Google), but wasn't able to find more substantial sources. Thanks for your consideration, Lunch 21:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The number of actual references cited in the article are not really our criteria for deletion/retention. The references that can be shown to exist are what's important. While a well-referenced article is best, we don't delete simply because articles aren't to that point yet. At any rate, the media linked to in "Media Discussions" section and available via the Google news result, to me, shows sufficient third party coverage exists. I see you've wasted no time in taking this to DRV though, so I guess that's where this will be decided. --W.marsh 21:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was the one who took it to WP:DRV I didn't see one source that meets WP:RS, mostly blogs, image galleries. etc, in fact i edit conflected you while closing it the AFD :p. My close was delete though Jaranda wat's sup 21:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Vanishing Point (alternate reality game). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jaranda wat's sup 21:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I did leave another comment at the deletion review, but it had already been removed by the time I hit "save page".  My comment was:
 * Okey doke, I'm willing to wait and see. But I do want to say that the Guardian "source" is from a blog at the Guardian (and not a regular news article).  And as I noted in the AfD discussion, the mention in the NY Times was a brief one (a few sentences) at the bottom of the article; the article was about Vista's release, not Vanishing Point.  The CNet/News.com article is OK; along with the Neowin and the Register forums these make for marginal sources, IMHO.  But I did make an honest attempt myself to find more mainstream, widely read sources but had no luck.  Lunch 22:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, with computer stuff, it might be unnecessarily restrictive to look for truly mainstream sources. And even if they exist... would we really base an article on Unix software on articles published by Fox News? At any rate, the question is whether the sources we have can make for an accurate, neutral article... not whether they're simply mainstream or not. Frame an argument around that and you might convince me the next time around (although I avoid closing a second AfD in most cases, I'd just be a commenter in it). --W.marsh 22:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd agree with you there. But I wouldn't consider Vanishing Point as software (Vista is a different story).  Vanishing Point is an advertising gimmick to get people interested in using Vista; it's also a game.  I posed the same question in one way or another at the AfD discussion: what's a good guideline to use for assessing notability of Vanishing Point?  WP:SOFTWARE doesn't cut the mustard as I see it, and although I cited WP:CORP, I'm not entirely comfortable with that either.  Put another way, what's a "reliable" source on Vanishing Point gonna look like?  Thanks, Lunch 23:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Psidream
hi there,

i am a musician and added my profile to wikipedia earlier today (under the name Psidream), only to find that it has been deleted due to a content copyright violation - apparently the words on the page were too similar to another site where they had my biography posted.

if there is anyway to reverse the deletion, please do this, as i wrote the biography and everything that was entered into the profile. that bio can most likely be found on just about every single site that has a feature on me, not just that one.

thanks, jeff

Psidream 08:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you'd need to release the text under the GFDL (see Copyright. It's really best not to write about yourself (see WP:AB) but if you do, the article will be deleted if it doesn't assert meeting WP:MUSIC in this case, and it's best if it's written just for Wikipedia, not copied from some other site. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising/publicity service... I know this is a lot of links to read, but stuff that's added here needs to be encyclopedic. --W.marsh 15:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Software Testing Techniques - Deleted?
I'm puzzled and pretty peeved to find this page deleted. This is because I wrote this:

Comment Then why delete this one? Why not incorporate those articles in this one, or leave all three as they are? By the way, if I do not comment for a few days, it is because I will be away. Will recheck this page within a week. Till then. Robinson weijman 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That was here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Software_Test_Techniques

So when I return from a break, I find it deleted. And I cannot find any explanation for why - it's just gone.

I would have liked to have the chance to reply to these comments before it going.

Isn't Wikipedia's policy for deletion, "concensus"?

Robinson weijman 23:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There didn't appear to be a consensus to keep it on Wikipedia as an article... I can move it to your userspace if you want to see if WikiBooks wants it. --W.marsh 23:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I would have appreciated your waiting until I had the chance to reply... Yes, please move it to my space. Thank you. Robinson weijman 08:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There you go, it's at User:Robinson weijman/STT --W.marsh 01:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. Robinson weijman 11:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you also provide me with the article's discussion page? Thanks Robinson weijman 10:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, it's at User talk:Robinson weijman/STT. --W.marsh 15:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, Mark. Robinson weijman 15:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Geometric shapes
I see you closed Articles for deletion/Glossary of shapes with metaphorical names, leaving a list of suggestions, including transwikiing and relisting on AfD; this seems odd, since it was transwikied before I nominated it for deletion (this was one of the reasons I nominated it; I'm sorry not to have been clear.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I guess the transwiki part of my close was irrelevent. But nevertheless, once something has been transwiki'd there still has to be a consensus established to delete it from Wikipedia outright, which wasn't evident in the afd. There is always the wi template, for a soft redirect. --W.marsh 18:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Jews in the military
I see Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jews_in_the_military has already been closed. Shouldn't this have waited for seven days after the re-list?--Osidge 17:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the standard waiting period is 5 days. Usually we start closing them in a fashion such that most are actually 6-7 days old before they're closed, but 5 is the standard minimum. See Guide_to_deletion for more. --W.marsh 18:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Asserted importance: Ronald Prokopez
If you assert importance in this case - Ronald Prokopez - you might consider to review my latest contribs, since I ran into several band members and asserted lack of importance in all cases. Cheers. Kai A. Simon 22:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The claim "He also recorded on "La Excelencia's" first salsa album "Salsa Con Conciencia" (salsa with a conscience) which has been acclaimed as one of the best salsa albums of the year." is what I considered an assertion of importance. I dunno if that's true, but CSD is not the way to decide that... PROD or AfD are. CSD is for when an article makes no claims of importance, or the claims are obviously false. --W.marsh 22:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Path
Thank you for your feedback. PathConnect is an established site w/ proven membership. We have also been covered by various media, including MSNBC and Los Angeles Magazine. How do I site these publications in order to prove the legitimacy of PathConnect as a Wikipedia entry??? AwescottADAM
 * Create an article mentioning the media coverage... see WP:CITE for details. --W.marsh 01:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

what?
asserts importance... try prod or afd

what does prod or afd mean
 * WP:PROD or WP:AFD, sorry. Alternative deletion tools that allow more time for discussion. --W.marsh 04:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

but i didnt try to delete it.....
 * Then you don't need to be worried about other ways of deletion, the advice was directed towards people who want to have the article deleted. --W.marsh 04:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Saving the World and Other Extreme Sports
WHY THE HELL DID YOU DELETE THIS IT WAS GOOD!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.109.183 (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Regarding deleted the article [MECON].
Regarding deleted the article [MECON]. You correctly pointed out the link http://www.mecon.co.in/brief.htm, from where the article was copied but you may NOT have noticed that it is NOT a copyright violation. If a typed description of my organization already exists, then why should I typed it again? Why can't I copy it? I will be very helpful if you bring to my notice how exactly do I violate the copyright if I copy text from my company's website (the particular page does not have a copyright notice) to describe it on wikipedia.

Mayank Abhishek 07:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well because everything on Wikipedia needs to be released under the GFDL, you basically give up almost everything typically associated with holding the copyright on the text. See Copyright. Also, the text was pretty blatently promotional and an advertisement... "At MECON we have all technical disciplines including"... this just isn't acceptable for Wikipedia. It's really best not to write about yourself/your company anyway, see the recent media circus with Microsoft employees. --W.marsh 15:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Statistics of Germany
I put the Speedy tag on there because the user has continuously removing any and all tags attached to the page.

But I couldn't quite tell...when you said in the edit summary "so redirect this article?" were you suggesting I do it? --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 20:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The summary indicated that a similar article had been redirected to the demographics article, so I assumed redirect to there. --W.marsh 20:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try it. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 20:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Steven B. Smith
Hi, could you do another admin job for me. See Talk:Steven B. Smith. The editor asked for a section in an earlier deleted version of the article (copyright violation). If the section is not a violation, could you give it to him? Garion96 (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It didn't look like a copyvio so I restored the section, see my edit summary for what I did with respect to the GFDL, hopefully that is okay. Anyway you can also check the secton to see if it's a copyvio, but I didn't see any evidence of it. --W.marsh 16:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that section doesn't look like a copyvio indeed. Thanks for the restore. Garion96 (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review for X-Chat Aqua
An editor has asked for a deletion review of X-Chat Aqua. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Linnwood (☎) 18:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

C von L
I've now read the de AfD, you are completely correct, and I put a note to that effect on the article talk page. I am really impressed by how carefully you work. (but -wikipedia doesn't get rid of the WP mirrors)DGG 21:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks... if the prod is removed we can take it to AfD for a more extensive look. I don't know why people add elaborate hoaxes to Wikipedia exactly, but some of them can seem quite convincing until you realize there's nothing off-site to back it up. --W.marsh 21:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Manfred Keune
Hi, Is the new version better? I am former student and wanted to spotlight his work. Thanks, Lfglatz 22:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it looks better. You'll want to add a category though. --W.marsh 22:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fool on the planet
Wait, the album cover capitalizes it as "Fool on the planet". If something intentionally doesn't use standard caps/grammar/spelling or whatever, we don't fix that for them, as that would be changing the title. --W.marsh 02:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, we do it all the time. See...
 * WikiProject Albums
 * WikiProject Music/MUSTARD
 * - Cyrus XIII 02:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * those are just project rules... WP:NAME says "In band names and titles of songs or albums, unless it is unique, the standard rule in the English language is to capitalize words that are the first or the last word in the title and those that are not conjunctions" However this is a unique title, they intentionally didn't capitalize the words as one normally one. We do try to leave capitalization the way people published it... hence lowercase (see all the articles that use it to preserve irregular capitalization). --W.marsh 02:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as my experience with capitalization related issues goes, the lowercase template pretty much only exists to cover the few exceptions permitted by WP:MOS-TM. And mere project rules or not, album related-articles are under the scope of WP:ALBUMS, so if they got it all wrong, by all means, tell them so. Though I would suggest that you read this article first, as it sums up the reasoning behind "unofficial" capitalization of trademarks and media publications really well. Please note that I do not mean to come across as dismissive or rude, if I do, I'm truly sorry. It's just that I have been through this discussion several times and after a while it gets a little unnerving how people keep suggesting to "open the gates" to all kinds of non-standard capitalization, regardless of the fact that Wikipedia could never even attempt to establish a coherent style if it was to follow these suggestions. - Cyrus XIII 03:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, and I might be coming off the wrong way too... I'm really more trying to understand this issue myself than telling you the way it has to be. But it's always seemed to me that we strive for the official title of works, unless a common title is much better known... part of that means following the capitalization used by the artist. You might actually be right though, as article titles in ALL CAPS seems like a bad idea offhand, but something still strikes me as wrong about capitalizing words that an artist clearly chose to leave lower case. Anyway, I'm sorry if this seems like a tired argument to you (I don't mean that sarcastically) but the solution to that is to get something clear and easy to understand added to WP:NAME on this issue, so we can just follow a clear guideline and not have an argument every time the issue comes up. I have already started the ball rolling at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions. --W.marsh 03:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. The somewhat ambiguous "unless it is unique" has bothered me for a while, we might really get a bit more clarity on these issues. I have already answered to your initial post, nothing new though, just summing up my previous points for everyone who might join the discussion. - Cyrus XIII 03:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA
Thank you for fixing the Voice your opinion on ProveIt's RfA!--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 04:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You really need to follow the directions on the page I linked to in the RfA still. --W.marsh 04:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to change my mind in the nomination. I told ProveIt if he still wants to run for the RfA, he can nominate himself, but that I could not help him any further, so I won't be blamed for any more mistakes that I make. I was wrong to try this, and I regret it.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 05:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I was told otherwise that I was not wrong to try it, and that the important thing is to learn from the mistake. I now have to wait for my canadate to confirm that he accepts on his RfA, before it gos on the main RfA page, and I remember reading that it would be ideal for him to answer all of the questions before it gos on the main RfA page, as well. I also know I'm supposed to keep the RfA page from having any votes or comments until it is linked to the main page. That is all I know. Please, forgive me for what happened. I nominated ProveIt to help make Wikipedia better, and that's what I want to happen as a result. I know that I'm still a newbie to Wikipedia, but I'm not here to cause harm to Wikipedia, like Brian G. Crawford, Amorrow, Cplot, or Daniel Brandt were, and I hope that I will not be compared to them.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 05:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything bad about you... mistakes happen. But mentioning to 4 people prone to heavy use of sockpuppets isn't a good thing... --W.marsh 05:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. I didn't know you would mind. Did I get everything right reagarding the procedure to nominate someone else for adminship?--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 01:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose, just add it to the RfA. --W.marsh 02:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Swapping pages
I attempted to swap Mark Flanagan with Mark Flanagan (disambiguation), and was told that I should have just gotten an administrator to do it. If non-administrators should not even attempt it, perhaps this should be more explicitly mentioned on How to rename (move) a page. As it's written now, it suggests that swapping a page is something anyone can do. Anyway, thanks for clearing the pages up! Ciotog 16:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You can do it in this case, just use the "move" tab (should be next to "history" and "edit this page"). Admins are needed when you want to move a page to where there is already an existing page, because in that case a deletion needs to be made to make room. --W.marsh 16:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

RremundO LTD
I dont know why you deleted that article. It wasn't a defunct company, it's an independent company that I still run on my own hence the no employees. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AngelsLosingSleep (talk • contribs) 12:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

This is a automated to all bot operators
Please take a few moments and fill in the data for your bot on Bots/Status Thank you Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

why was krav maga, inc deleted?
...why was krav maga, inc deleted? I did not plagiarize, and i consider myself a reliable source (i'm a student at the school). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.209.164.184 (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
 * See the deletion log at . I apparently didn't delete this article. --W.marsh 21:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

UNAS
Hello again. Apparently, out of nothing but spite you continue to undermine my efforts on writing the article on United Nations Association of Serbia. I CLEARLY stated I have access to the document and thus it's NOT copyright. If you didn't delete the page, then I'm sorry, but tell me, what else can I say to prove it to you that I didn't take it without permission? Superfan 410 18:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the information. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. Superfan 410 13:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Making wild accusations isn't going to help you here, I only deleted it the first time, two others have deleted it subsequently, see . Why don't you just create the article in your own words, formatted correctly? The article that got deleted wasn't a very useful encyclopedia article anyway... text dumps rarely are. At any rate, it isn't enough merely to allow Wikipedia to use the text, it has to be released under the GFDL, meaning basically anyone can use it for any purpose. See Copyright. --W.marsh 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi, as you perhaps have seen, my RFA was successful. I won't come to you anymore if I need help which only an admin can do, instead I will come if I need help how to do stuff only an admin can do. :) Thanks again for nominating me. Garion96 (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem... and feel free to come here for help with the admin tools. But I'm sure you'll do fine.--W.marsh 16:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)