User talk:Retired username/Archive13

DRV listing
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of songs featured on The Office (US TV series). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otto4711 20:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

PWI Years and PWI 500 pages
An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:MadMax/PWI Years. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MadMax 03:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

DRV
Thanks, as I've said there the editor was more than aware they were copyvios. One Night In Hackney 303  05:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

New AFD nominations now to the top of the per-day sub-page
It has been suggested often enough. I'm boldly Just Doing It, per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Uncle G 14:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD closes
I've noticed you have closed several AfDs where you forgot to remove the REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD template. This causes the debate to remain listed in one of the Category:Articles for deletion subcategories and confuses some bots. Please remember to remove these in the future. &mdash;dgies tc 06:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Many closers use WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD.js, it could be updated to remove these things, but I know nothing about scripting. My point is that there are several automated solutions here, and those have been bypassed to just whine at closers to do extra work. --W.marsh 18:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I intentionally don't remove that template because I think it's a bad idea. No one asked closers if they wanted to be responsible for that template... it was just there screaming at us to do so one day. A smarter template or a bot could do this work. --W.marsh 12:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As you've discussed this issue before, you should know that there is not currently a good technical solution, so this particular form of protest is not constructive. If you want to change the AfD process, discuss it and get help, don't just do malformed closes.  &mdash;dgies tc 18:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A bot is a better solution than badgering closers to do unnecessary, mindless work. It's not a malformed close... as far as I'm concerned this template shouldn't even be there in the first place. --W.marsh 18:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you like me to update your monobook.js for you to use the latest version of that script? &mdash;dgies tc 18:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is the latest version of that script? I thought I had the most recent one. --W.marsh 18:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The link you just provided to WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD.js seems to "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE..." while your own monobook doesn't.   &mdash;dgies tc 18:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll update it then. --W.marsh 18:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Schools in North America
I wanted to inquire as to your decision to close the above AfD as a no consensus to delete, when the clear majority seems to be keep. In light of the overwhelming support to keep the article, supported by documentation supporting the notability of the article, combined with improvements to the article as requested by delete voters, it would seem that keep would be the clear direction. Given the contentious nature of these AfDs, a keep will demonstrate the group consensus, while a no consensus is an invitation for yet another AfD, sooner rather than later. Alansohn 13:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In practice I've never seen the words "no consensus" instead of "keep" matter much in future AFDs... the fact that there were previous AFDs has always been enough that many people want new evidence to disprove the validity of the previous decision to keep. No consensus and keep are really almost the same thing in the field. I generally say "keep" when it's a similar supermajority to a "delete" decision, e.g. 66% or more people want to keep. It was close here... but at least one of the keep votes was apparently canvased for, and the article was substantially rewritten during the AFD so not everyone was commenting on the same version. But again, there's really no tremendous difference... if this gets AFD'd again people will still say "Well what's new since the last AFD?" --W.marsh 13:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am entirely unfamiliar with a rule requiring a supermajority on an AfD to keep, and I'd love to see the source for this. Even with this requirement, and even discounting one of the participants, the more than 66% threshold was satisfied. Alansohn 14:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's closer's discretion... there really is not nearly as much difference between "keep" and "no consensus" as people seem convinced there is. Some closers say "no consensus - defaults to keep" precisely to avoid this kind of thing. --W.marsh 14:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can refer you to many second nomination AfDs where the fact that the previous AfD ended as a no consensus was used as a justification to start a second (or third, or fourth...) AfD. A keep places a very strong burden on the nominator to show that there has been a distinct change in the underlying consensus since the previous AfD closed. Given that there's not much of a difference, and given that there is no requirement for a supermajority and given that the supermajority requirement was met, could you please reflect the consensus of the AfD as a keep.Alansohn 15:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My sincere thanks for the further reflection and the change. Alansohn 17:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

GNAA troll User:Pretest
The user created a sockpuppet 3 minutes after your block: &mdash; BRIAN 0918  &bull; 2007-05-25 19:25Z
 * It looks as though he's already been blocked --W.marsh 20:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Research Foundation
On Islamic Research Foundation, where the tally was 6-3 against keep. I can't figure out why it wasn't merged with a redirect. What is the needed proportion? I'd given up on proposing AfD's for this reason. Some editors widely known for creating unsourced POV content have learned that creating their own articles - lots of them - gives them a free hand they'd never get on anything that was on anyone else's watchlist. It just doesn't make sense that it's far, far easier to add an unsourced or poorly-sourced article than an unsourced/poorly-sourced sentence.Proabivouac 16:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Old Louisville question
Do you think the following would be appropriate/ accurate to put in the heading of the Old Louisville page: That it "was the first neighborhood in Louisville built away from the river and centered more towards the railroads".

I take "first suburb" to mean it was the first non river fronted development in Louisville Angry Aspie 20:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well... Phoenix Hill and Russell do not front the river, and they had substantial pre-Civil War development (I actually don't know of any antebellum structures surviving in Old Louisville). You could say it reflected a trend of development away from the river, but I'm not sure if it was very railroad-centric, compared to communities like Anchorage, Glenview, etc. that were built around railroad stations. --W.marsh 21:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

DRV
Ok, well seeing you are assuming good faith, I've restored it pending some discussion.--Docg 00:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it really should be deleted given recent changes to WP:NOT and the evolution of BLP, but the way this was deleted annoyed me. I didn't really feel like a conducting DRV of an article I'm not sure should actually be undeleted. But thanks for agreeing to discussion. -W.marsh 00:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We have a problem here. We both know that the article would probably survive AfD. We probably agree that WP:NOT this. So, is that the last word?--Docg 00:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What about just merging/redirecting the article to premature birth? Unlike some people who gets news coverage her case actually has scientific importance... but not really biographical importance. Then again that seems to be an article without any clear place for notable cases to be placed. --W.marsh 00:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That premature births happen at young ages can be referenced on that article without actual biographical details. But we're moving in the right direction. Problem with a merge though is that it leaves a redirect, so Google will still pick it up. And 18 years from now that's maybe not doing the subject any favours.--Docg 00:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well... that's something I've never considered in writing articles. Importance, yes. But I'm sure Paula Cooper would prefer I hadn't written an article on her... should we delete that one too? I guess Wikipedia's changing on me. Anyway, as for Amillia Taylor, isn't it possible people will be searching for that name, as it will probably be mentioned occasionally in textbooks and news articles for a long time... that's where a redirect comes in handy. But if deletion is technically necessary to purge her name from almighty Google, I guess I don't object. But in cases where there is some importance, if not biographical importance, to an article... it would be nice if that information didn't just vanish when an article was deleted. --W.marsh 01:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is being able to find the article with the name known a problem? It's not like we're making the information much easier to find or posting her home address or future workplace.  The most people will know is "oh you have the same name as that girl" which they could have found in a five second google anyway.  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

AFD discussion
Hello, you closed the AfD discussion for Lowercase i prefix with a "keep" decision. I'm not contesting that closure at all, no one was interested in deleting it, but I felt there was enough consensus to warrant merging the information to Internet-related prefixes. I have decided to be bold and go ahead and perform the merge myself, but have informed all the participants to the AFD discussion to my actions and invited them to discuss it on the talk page if they disagreed. As the closer I wanted to alert you to this as well and hopefully not step on your toes! Regards,  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine... a keep decision at an AFD means that content should be preserved, but not automatically that it has to stay a standalone article. AFD is primarily about whether content should be deleted, or not. --W.marsh 12:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

SSP
Hi, in response to your note on the AfD for Wipipedia, after some analysis of contribution times, I have strong reason to believe both user:Holdenhurst, a usernames which participated in stacking earlier Wipipedia AfDs, and user:Osidge are also part of that sockpuppet group mentioned. I noticed this after they also stacked the Jewish Mathematicians DRV. Bulldog123 06:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Holdenhurst is not one of the 4 we suspected in the Wipipedia AFD, Osidge was... but there are apparently a lot of accounts being used here so it's possible both are in the group. We sent evidence to ArbCom by e-mail but haven't heard anything back except apparently agreement that there was sockpuppetry on the Wipipedia AFD. I will talk to the other admin I'm working with on this... since the sockpuppetry is apparently continuing. I'm starting to think we just need to go with an open arbcom case and put all the facts on the table. Just to give fair warning, another one of the suspected sockpuppets is an admin, so this will attract special attention. --W.marsh 12:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Holdenhurst didn't participate in the most recent Wipipedia AFD but they did in the others, like here: Articles for deletion/Wipipedia (2 nomination) In small CfDs/AfDs I don't think the sockpuppeteer uses all the usernames since it would get too obvious, but on longer ones they do since people usually don't read all the comments. For example, after Wipipedia, the sockpuppetry moved over to the Jewish Mathematicians DRV (Deletion review/Log/2007 May 7) and CfD (Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007 May 14) (which aren't mentioned on the SSP link by the way). They practically all participated there, consisting of about 6 or 7 !votes and tons of comments. You probably know all this already, but I just wanted to make sure you get Holdenhurst checked out too. :) Bulldog123 16:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Louisville brainstorming about enhancing communication and coordination
See this project talk topic. Your views are very much welcome! Stevie is the man! Talk &bull; Work 17:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Youth Legislative Assembly
Youth Legislative Assembly has no connection to Model Congress other than a very slight similarity in interest (to educate youth on how government works by doing mock assemblys/trials). It would be better to have it deleted than to create a redirect as it would cause confusion for those seeking info on Youth Legislative Assembly. Acidskater 20:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that YLA was a model congress, just not a very notable one. Hence the redirect. --W.marsh 20:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It can be considered a model congress. I think the best thing to do, if the redirect is kept, is to add at least a blurb about YLA in the model congress page. If it is not added it would cause confusion to anyone researching YLA and it would be best to just delete the redirect. Acidskater 06:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Articles_for_deletion/BDORT closing
I think the result should say "Keep - nomination withdrawn" to make it clear for everyone. This was also the result of a previous AfD on the article so the wording should be consistent. Thanks, Crum375 21:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * well, I'll change it, but it's really just semantics. --W.marsh 21:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for changing it. The reason I asked for it is that on the article Talk page we have a list box of the previous AfDs - 3 by now, and they all start with "Keep - ". I didn't want to fudge the wording, nor did I want to go in myself and fix it in the closed AfD under your signature, so that's why I came here. Thanks again, Crum375 22:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that now, thanks for integrating the notice. I confess I just kind of hurry through slapping the notice on the talk page. --W.marsh 22:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem - thanks for the quick fix. Crum375 22:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Query
Why did you relist the AFD on Voy Sobon, considering it was a unanimous delete?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The 2 late sources... at a glance I wasn't sure if they added to notability or not, I thought people should look into this further. If you don't relist people complain too for closing without enough discussion. --W.marsh 13:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * Thanks for the notice, and the work keeping DYK updated. --W.marsh 19:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yoda Award
Were there one, give you a Yoda Barnstar I would. -wizzard2k ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 20:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks... I guess I should either hire an editor or not close AFDs in such a stream of consciousness style.--W.marsh 20:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Cindy Nelson, singer
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Cindy Nelson, singer, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Cindy Nelson, singer fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: redirect to deleted article To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Cindy Nelson, singer, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Cindy Nelson, singer itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisting AfDs
Thanks for the note...actually, I do have a question...I thought I had removed it from the old day's log...I edited the log, removed the transclusion line and saved it. Is there a different/better method?  AK Radecki  13:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What you did was maybe was removed it from the old log, then accidently posted it back to the top of that old log. See . What I do to relist is click "what links here", remove it from the old log, then click to WP:AFD and click "Add a new entry". In this case moving it from Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 24 to Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 1. Hope that clears it up. --W.marsh 13:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like bone-headedness on my part! Thanks for the assist!  AK Radecki  14:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's to you!
I found the whole Runcorn situation detective work fascinating, and good work to you all for the work. I'm specifically dropping you a line of recognition, because it was yourself and Alhutch that I first ran across who were admins in a sockpuppet case 14 months ago on the Matt Leinart article. I was a bit inspired to work towards more than just reverting vandalism, which is what led me to the article in the first place. Kudos, happy editing. Keegan talk 03:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks... the whole Runcorn thing was a team effort. He was just someone who didn't think he had to play by the rules... they usually get caught eventually. Keep up the good work! --W.marsh 13:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD of Miss Dynamite
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Miss Dynamite. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Zabadab (Talk) @ 22:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply to user:Seicer
WP:WIAFA: ""Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged."

To clarify, while it is not a quote, it is material that is likely to be challenged. The insertion of an uncited statement should be removed in order to protect the integrity of a FA. It's not as if it is gone forever -- a simple cut/paste, with citation, is all that is needed.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But do you actually think the claim is false? WIAFA just speaks of articles being factually accurate. The article cites many general sources, including "The Encyclopedia of Louisville", by removing the claim you're suggesting the claim is not backed up by any of those sources. --W.marsh 03:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but I haven't been able to find verification for that. I've been searching for the past 10 minutes using various Google and C-J archive queries and haven't come up with anything yet. I suppose you are correct about the WIAFA citation; I misinterpreted it. Cheers,  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then it's fine to remove the claim if you aren't able to find anything. I wasn't sure you even found the claim dubious, I'm the first to agree that anything dubious needs an inline source, that's what WIAFA says. At any rate, I'm looking at the Encyclopedia of Louisville now and not seeing specific confirmation of the claim in question. --W.marsh 03:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I spent about 30 minutes searching for this (and found other nice articles on other topics) but could not come up with anything. Let's see if Stevie or someone can poke the archives some.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 05:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

dab == ==

I just changed Final four to redirect to NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship again, you might want to make note of that. --W.marsh 13:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I'll stop screwing with the "Final four" links now. CSWarren 13:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

YechielMan's RFA
Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. Yechiel Man 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Link problems
None of the Community Resource page links on the neighborhood pages are working, probably due to the pages being moved to another web address. Angry Aspie 14:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I'd noticed that. It's a shame because they had useful statistics. Either we find the new site if there is one or I guess use links to archive.org copies of the old pages. --W.marsh 14:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

JP IV
I think "no consensus" is more appropriate, since there were only like 3 more people that said "keep" than said either "merge or delete". That isn't really clearly as one-sided as the outcome makes it appear to be.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think "merge or delete" is not a very valid vote and generally consider it closer to a keep/redirect vote. I think there was no consensus about merging or keeping outright, I'll change the summary to reflect that. --W.marsh 19:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That was my point, that it wasn't clear what people actually wanted.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

prof. Lewandowski
Can you tell me why you deleted article about Prof. J. B. Lewandowski? Do not say that he is not a notable person. Who are you to evaluate such prominent scholar and academic like him? If the Polish Highest Governmental Academic and scientific institution gave him full professorship in both specialities of Economics and technology. Is wikipedia is devoted to certain people and organization members?????? Awaiting for your response Mr. W.marsh.
 * See the top of this page: "If you are here to ask about a deletion (or other action), you should link to the article/action in question. I do not have time to play detective and find out what you're talking about, as it's often not very clear unless you provide a link." There is no deleted article at J. B. Lewandowski. --W.marsh 01:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have deleted an article about Prof. Jerzy Bolesław Lewandowski. Thanks.


 * Well, see my closing at Articles for deletion/Jerzy Bolesław Lewandowski. Do you have any reliable sources on the guy? Published articles about him? --W.marsh 13:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thus, who are you to evaluate him? This is a strange world, if he is a singer or a sportsman or something like this you will not be against him. I noticed that wikipedia is a place for young ignorant and arrogant guys, who think that they can accept or delete resumes of prominent people, who are considered as a great authority of science, education and personal culture with all of good manners and academic ethics. Regards, Sameer Ayyoub, Ass. Professor PhD in (Economics), B.Sc. & M.Sc. in Industrial Engg. & ID in Civil Engg.
 * More respect for respectful/respectable professor please, I do not like this word "guy" in his case, he does not play with you football, ping pong, or something like this. If you respect things like Wiklpedia as an encyklopedia, you must use good phrases, when you say anything about this kind of people. I am not a detective as you mentioned to find articles about him. Because in Polish language you can find tens. I know that all of biographical lexicons and encyclopedias. For example, the most important and prestigious biographical lexicon of Polish scientists, Golden Edition of Polish Science "Who is Who in Polish Science". Besides, he is one of few scientists, who holds the highest two titles of full professorship given by President of Poland (after special report of Polish Governement, Central Committee of Scientific Higher educational degrees and titles, as a full professor of Economics and a full Professor of Technology. Further more he is a head of institution who gave evaluate and give recognition for all of polish scientists and institutions or universities in Economic domain. He gives accrediations to institutions and respectful personalities in economic sciences.
 * "Who's who" directories are often not actually independent sources. But I treat everyone the same on Wikipedia, despite your accusations, if you can present sufficient sources, I will not have a problem with an article. Just arguing and accusing me of this and that will not get the article back. The deleted entry was more of a resume than an encyclopedia article, we aren't just a directory of every academic in the world, we write articles that people will actually get something out of reading. See G. Ledyard Stebbins for an example of what we're going for here... make the article look more like that and no one will ever want to delete it. But the key thing is to show that sufficient reliable sources exist. --W.marsh 13:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of Hunter Street Baptist Church article
Thanks for restoring this article through the deletion review. I must say I was rather surprised at how quickly the review went. It was my first time to go through the process, as I'm usually the one proposing deletions on new-page patrol. Cheers! Realkyhick 03:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, yours was an uncontroversial request because you'd actually addressed the problems presented in the AFD. Many people coming to DRV don't do that. --W.marsh 03:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Dolphin TV
First of all, the removal of this artical was incorrect and it should be restored. The channel has been on the air since 2003 and was between 2006 and May 2007 available across the US via GlobeCast World TV (Still available on their website). I am not the owner of the channel or any other channel at all but I am one of the few that was able to see the channel via satellite Galaxy 25.

Please make the article available again. --66.125.194.26 03:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It was deleted based on consensus at Articles for deletion/Dolphin TV... do you have anything to contradict that? Published sources about this station would be especially useful. --W.marsh 04:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The other claim is also false since Dolphin-TV got off the ground (check www.globecastworldtv.com) for the additional information. Both parties demanding the deletion have done no research at all and post notices without checking--66.125.194.26 22:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC) - Google Web-Alert für: dolphin-tv
 * The station has been very haevely promoted in the German speaking world. TonyFox claims that he was unable to locate just one press release (Well I guess he shoudl have used Google}. Just search in Google News the station and you will see hundreds of news and press releases. They may be in German but regardless about the station.

DXtv.de | Suchergebnis "Dolphin TV bietet der stetig wachsenden deutsch-amerikanischen ... Dolphin TV ist flächendeckend in Nordamerika empfangbar über Globecast (Intelsat IA-5). ...

Infofeeds.de - 24h Nachrichtenportal - Bahn TV erobert ... Ausgestrahlt wird Bahn TV im Programm des US-Senders "Dolphin TV" mit Sitz in Cape Coral, Florida. 1-.-0.2007 18: 0. Quelle: infosat.info - Schlagzeilen ...

cmwmedia-Forum :: Thema anzeigen - USA: Neuer deutschsprechender ... In den USA ist ein weiterer deutschsprachiger TV-Sender gestartet: Dolphin-TV, so der Name des Senders, ist ein in Florida beheimateter Sender, ...

I was following the news about the channel and I received this email from google today. That the channel never got of the grounds is just not true. --66.125.194.26 23:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd need links to actual published independent sources about this thing to be able to reconsider. --W.marsh 02:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If you google "Dolphin-TV" you should be able to find enough about the network. The article was online since September 2006 and was edited several times as well--66.125.194.26 04:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I will need links to sources, not Google results. That a term gets results on Google doesn't at all mean acceptable sources exist. --W.marsh 04:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears
There was no agreement on the decision to delete the Britney Spears album page. You don't get to declare. It was still going on. DO NOT REMOVE! 68.82.82.248 04:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Any admin can close an AFD after 5 days. The way to challenge it is to present new evidence to the closer or request a review at WP:DRV. --W.marsh 04:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bryan Ottoson
Hi W.Marsh, please, what was the final reason that drove you to deleting this article? I have a similar case and just wanted to see if I am founding the arguments correctly.ThanksStellatomailing 14:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Cool, thanks. :-) Stellatomailing 16:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well consensus was for deletion, and no one bothered addressing the issue raised by the nominator, e.g. that the article "is not cited". Citing reliable, published sources is the surest way to get an article kept... not being able to do so means the article will get deleted sooner or later. --W.marsh 16:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Research Foundation
W.marsh, I don't recall you getting back to me about the closure of this AfD. Basically, this foundation is just Naik's own ministry and should have been merged and redirected. (p.s. your most recent archives aren't linked to your user talk.)Proabivouac 03:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it was "no consensus to delete" and that's all it means... AFD primarilly decides whether or not there's a consensus to delete. Merging/redirecting is an editorial decision that doesn't require an AFD, basically you can do it whenever you want. But if there isn't a consensus for the change you'll get reverted. --W.marsh 03:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Homer Bailey
I saw your recent addition to the Bailey article. I hesitate to simply revert the statement because I understand the feelings surrounding that individual. However, that statement fails WP:NPOV. Perhaps you could rework it to make the statement a little more encyclopedic. However, I am inclined to remove the remark (and any traces of it). The facts of the situation should stand on their own. I want to give you a chance to edit the article before I simply strike the information. If you want to discuss this further, we can do so on the articles talk page. I feel that is the best location because interested parties are probably watching that talk page, but not yours. Cheers and happy editing. // Tecmobowl 13:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I can cite the 2007 Baseball Prospectus book for Bailey's status, as it lists him as the #2 pitching prospect in baseball and the #1 in the Reds organization. And it's one of the top scouting reports so it should be a fine source. As for Reds fans anticipating it... my main source was just FSN Ohio commentators and the fan reaction shown last night, but surely there's a source in print about this. There were supposedly billboards around Cincy about Bailey. I'll post this to the article talk page too. --W.marsh 14:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Atkinson
There's a couple assertations of notability, but there don't seem to be much of note there. Suggestion to merge with NE1 FM doesn't work: That station launched *yesterday* and made no assertion of notability, so I speedied it. I'm inclined to just go ahead and delete: There's little evidence of true notability, and it reads like a puff piece. Adam Cuerden talk 22:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

UKNova
Hi

I was reading the discussion on the 2nd nomination of AfD for UKNova. I can't see how you came up with the decision "redirect" based on the votes - 1 nomination, 2 weak keeps, 1 strong keep, and 1 delete. That seems like no consensus to me? Can you please explain your decision? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Because AFD isn't a vote... the strength of arguments is more important, and no one really convinced me there were enough reliable sources for an article on that topic. --W.marsh 12:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It may not be a vote, but who says that you are the final arbiter? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I do... you can take it to WP:DRV if you really want to, but they usually want non-trivial sources as much as I do. --W.marsh 14:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Colligo Contributor Article
I'd like you to re-consider the deletion of the Colligo Contributor article. The deletion log shows that it was deleted for a conflict of interest.

Actually the article was posted in response to changes made by User:Simonaberry to the article on SharePoint. In particular the secton on and link to an article on Sharepoint Offline Synchronization Comparison. He contacted us and invited us to provide additional information to help him with the article. I can provide emails evidence of this if you need it.

Clearly, since there was a substantial entry for Groove in Wikipedia, there was also a requirement for an entry for colligo Contributor since it provides a similar funtion vis-a-vis offline SharePoint. Yes, I made the entry and I'm from Colligo, but I made no effort to disguise my identity and therefore now we are being penalized for this.

I think if you look closley at the article, it is entirely factual. There is no hyperbole at all. The only comment about it being called a "Client for SharePoint" is substantiated by an article citation.

I noted as well, the comment by John Vandenberg that Colligo Contributor is "...Not notable software with few reliable sources. 600 google results. few google news archive results. John Vandenberg 03:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)"

I beg to differ. I can provide many individual blog entries and reviews in major magazines such as eWeek and Windows IT Pro. SharingPoint Technotes WindowsITPro eWeek

It's even been promoted on the Microsoft SharePoint team blog: TeamBlog

Several Microsoft employees and MVPs have blogged about it. i can provide citations of you wish.

It's promoted by many sharepoint hosting companies, such as (the largest) Apptix and many others: Apptix

In fact, the product was named one of three finalists for "Best of Tech Ed 2007" last week in Orlando. TechEd

In conclusion I respectfully request that this page be reinstated. If you need an independent source I can get one of our hundreds of customers to write a post if you like.

Colligo.
 * I'm looking into it. But if you mean Microsoft Office Groove, that article cites a Wall Street Journal article. At Wikipedia we consider each article individually based on the sources that exist for that topic. You mention blogs, which are not usually considered acceptable sources. Do you have published, non-blog sources? I do possibly see some at . I think I am going to restart the deletion discussion as it didn't get enough participation the first time through. --W.marsh 19:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Colligo Contributor (2nd nomination). --W.marsh 19:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Your accusation of borderline trolling at this discussion page
Please try and read my comments, and the edit summary, before accusing me of trolling. I have made a comment at the talk page above. Best Wishes. Pedro | Chat  21:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate it if you would pause, breathe, and realise I'm here to help. I found your accusation rather upsetting, coming as it does from an experienced editor like yourself. Pedro | Chat
 * If you're here to help, then stop being sarcastic. It's not helpful. --W.marsh 21:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please have the decency to reply on my talk page as well. I guess that my ironic - not sarcastic comment was not understood. I'm sorry about that, but you will note that on that discussion page there was a thread right before that went the same line in terms of sarcasm and humour. Sorry to have crossed swords here, but I assure you of my best intent. Pedro | Chat  21:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It says at the top of this page "If you post here, I will reply here". I don't really know what else to say... there's a way to diffuse a situation, and making more sarcastic remarks isn't it. Sometimes people misinterpret things... you can argue that they shouldn't have, but that doesn't change the fact that they did, and just piling on more sarcasm was counterproductive. --W.marsh 21:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about that, but you really should have read my initial comment correctly - it didn't need the edit summary to be clearly ironic, not sarcastic. I think we are in agreement in terms of self noms at it goes. I'm really sorry that you felt there was a situation to difuse, as IMHO there wasn't one till you created it by accusing me of borderline trolling. Shall we move on? Cheers and best wishes Pedro | Chat  22:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

CFRE-FM
Um, if there was no consensus to delete this article, then why did you delete it? DHowell 23:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess that was an accident. I undeleted. --W.marsh 23:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

your closing of Articles for deletion/Gallery of city flags
My own (though no doubt biased) interpretation of the discussion about this page was that consensus was not reached and substantive arguments made by proponents of the page (and of flag galleries in general) were not adequately addressed by those favoring deletion. Could you comment on why you reached a different interpretation? Thanks, --ScottMainwaring 23:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the argument that it clearly goes against WP:NOT is pretty strong. And commons can do this just well as us, since we current fair use policy precludes using fair use images in galleries (and commons can link back to Wikipedia articles). If you really think Wikipedia should have an article on this, the place to bring it up is probably the WP:NOT talk page to see if there's a consensus to amend that policy. And I doubt the policy about fair use in galleries will change any time soon, so it will probably be limited to free images. Sorry the article got deleted but sometimes policy is just clear on an issue, I can't really close an AFD as a keep when I think the policy-based arguments clearly favor deletion. --W.marsh 23:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Michael J. Devlin
You wrote a clear keep on the afd page, but no consensus on the article talk. Just a mistake? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently. I guess I meant "no consensus" so I'll change the wording in the AFD to that. In case you're wondering a major reason I'd call it "no consensus" instead of "keep" is that this is part of a larger dispute that isn't resolved (as much as we might like it to be). --W.marsh 01:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The debate itself seemed pretty clear cut. I think it would confuse things too much to change a result based on things external to the debate. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just one debate amongst many... and the people who wanted it deleted seem unlikely to change their mind. So it seems that no consensus is what it was. Ultinately the difference between the words "keep" and "no consensus" isn't nearly as big as people sometimes think. An actual consensus will still be needed to delete, redirect, merge, etc. --W.marsh 01:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging
Hello: I saw a comment that you left on Wikimedia Commons about the total lack of instruction on how to use this tag. I was wondering if you ever found out anything. I just used it on an image Image:WoodyGuthrieBirthplace.jpg for the Woody Guthrie article. I have no idea if I did it right, so I also threw a bunch of other text up with it. Thanks. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 02:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * no, I don't think I did... but it's been over a year and no one complained on Commons (I uploaded about 5 images under that license). I really wish I had more for you but I never really figured it out... it looks like you've provided a link and reproduction number, that should be sufficient. --W.marsh 03:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, man, this stuff is complicated, but the call number for your image seems to be "OKLA,54-OKE.V,1-1". Whereas a call number for one of mine KY,56-LOUVI,16-6. So that actually makes a bit of sense.. there's a uniform system they use (LOUVI stands for Louisville in the latter case). This call number is viewable on the main summary for the item, such as . I think that call number is what we're going for, it seems to be the same as the reproduction number. Is this making sense? I think the main things to include for source info are A) call number B) URL of item summary at HABS and C) direct link to image. --W.marsh 03:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. I think what I have up then should be enough to spare me an ugly templated tag on my talk page.  Its a bummer that its so complicated sorting this tagging stuff out.  Seems like the Foundation would simplify this stuff as much as possible, as free content is the way forward.  I've been doing a lot of work tagging non-free content the last couple of days and that stuff is tricky too.  Makes me kind of want to take the low road and just go vote "delete per nom" on AFDs for a while :) &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 03:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Gamelux
Why was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamelux deleted? There was no consenus in the debate and the page meets notability guidelines. Zerter 15:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the two sources cited for "biggest esports site in benelux" just seem to make an original argument based on 2 sources that don't actually confirm the claim (one of the keep votes was conditional on the claim actually being proven). Another source is a trivial mention and the other isn't in english. Kudos for rewriting the article but I'm going to stand by my close, you can take it to WP:DRV if you want a review. --W.marsh 17:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Emcads
Hi this Ron Wilkins the creator of the deleted Emcads article. Would it be possible to get a copy of the page code prior to deletion. We would like to re-submit and use the deleted page as a avoidance map. Thanks Rocketron5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketron5 (talk • contribs) Thanks User:rocketron5
 * Sure, here it is: User:Rocketron5/Emcads. If moved back to the article space, it will need to be substantially rewritten (addressing the reasons it was deleted). Otherwise it can be deleted again. --W.marsh 17:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Shaykh_Nazim_al-Qubrusi
Hey, I dont really understand wikipedia that well, but I've come to right a wrong that has occured. Recently you deleted the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaykh_Nazim_al-Qubrusi due to a deletion review located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shaykh_Nazim_al-Qubrusi_%282nd_nomination%29.

Shaykh Nazim al-Qubrusi is a spiritual leader of the Naqshbandi Golden chain which has its headquarters in cyprus. The naqshbandi are a spiritual form of islam. There are many other forms of islam which dislike and bare grudges to the naqshbandi golden chain and seem to spend a lot of time on wikipedia deleting and vandalising their articles. It seems that they fooled you into deleting the article.

If you have the time i would be very appreciative to take a look into the deletion you made and see if the article can be restored. If you search for Shaykh Nazim on the internet you get 80,000 hits + so im sure he is notable to deserve a page.

Here is the origional deletion review which decided that the article should not be deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shaykh_Nazim_al-Qubrusi

Sorry If i am not going through the correct process to resotre this page but I dont really udnerstand wikipedia that well.

Thanks very much, Louis.
 * Well, it looks like people in the second AFD didn't believe that there were reliable, indepednent sources that have written about this topic. Can you cite any? They're crucial to writing a Wikipedia article. --W.marsh 19:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection request for Chair
You semi-protected Chair back in February. As it is an uncontroversial subject, and I doubt the bout of vandalism from that time will be ongoing still, and also because there has been no discussion on the article's talk page about any problems, I think it should be unprotected now. Instead of requesting unprotection officially, I'm asking the protecting admin (you) first, as per Requests_for_page_protection. Thank you! -kotra 02:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any point? The article got heavy IP vandalism and little else before the protection. People just type in generic terms and vandalize the article if they can. --W.marsh 02:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The point would be to allow unregistered and recently registered users to edit the page, like most of Wikipedia. Constant vandalism or a controversial subject would warrant continued protection, but I doubt a mundane subject like chair would get any more than occasional vandalism, like most articles. We can easily revert occasional vandalism. My interpretation of the protection policy is that protection should only be used in special cases when it's necessary, allowing anonymous and recently registered users to more easily contribute to articles. Please let me know if I am misinformed about this. -kotra 02:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you checked the edit history of this article? It gets about 2-4 vandal edits per day. I'm not going to unprotect it just so that can happen again with no real improvement to the article. I'm sure there are plenty of other admins who'll unprotect it and run away from the article, but I watch this so I'd actually be the one dealing with the vandalism, so I'm not going to unprotect right now. --W.marsh 02:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. I had checked the edit history. It got increasing vandalism towards the end, up to, as you say, 2-4 vandalism edits per day for the last few days leading up to your protection in February. I'm not disputing your protection. I'm aware that it was justified at that time (though it would have been appropriate to mention it on the talk page). However, before that, vandalism was much less common. It seems like it was just a temporary thing with a few anonymous vandals (or one using multiple IPs). I'm pretty sure it will have cooled off by now. That's why I feel that it should be unprotected. I'm surprised this is even something we're still discussing, though. It's not really a big deal either way. I won't make an official request for unprotection since I have no pressing need to (I can edit it myself, if I wanted to), and since you seem to feel strongly about it. -kotra 03:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Murloc AfD
Hi - Whilst I realise that there was overwhelming support for keeping the Murloc article, I was wondering on what basis did you decide to mark the AfD as a keep? - Tiswas (t) 08:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that there was general support for keeping, and that no clear policy issue was raised that would override such support. --W.marsh 11:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - Thank you for elaborating - Tiswas (t) 11:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

St. Matthews
I hadn't seen the article until the OTRS ticket, so I can't speak for any of the edits before mine. As the ticket was in the legal queue, I made the necessary changes. I think it's an article that deserves to stay on there, but if you do edit it please please PLEASE make sure that it's attributed to the utmost of reliable sources. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  14:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh that's exactly what I did. When I rewrote the article, I knew nothing about the organization, so everything was from the newspaper articles I cited as sources. --W.marsh 14:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I need help/advice on a page move
Hello. When you have a moment, I need help with a rather complicated page move. Some time back, the Situationist article was moved to Situationist International while Situationist was redirected to the Situationism dab page. This is all well and good, and was the correct course of action. However, the original Talk:Situationist page was not moved, and is now more or less stranded, and the discussion that went on there, which is important for the Situationist International article, is not immediately accessible. The Talk:Situationist International page is being used for nothing but storage of information that was apparently going to be integrated into the article---I cannot say offhand whether that was ever done. So, we have a talk page that needs to be moved, but cannot be, because the page to which it should be moved is not being used properly. I have no idea how to sort this out. Your advice would be appreciated. Thanks for your time. --- Theoldanarchist  Comhrá  02:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess merge Talk:Situationist with Talk:Situationist International? That can be done pretty. I'll do it if you think that sounds like a solution. --W.marsh 12:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, a merge sounds like the right solution. That had not occured to me, and I would not know how to go about it if it had occured.  Thanks for your response. ---  Theoldanarchist  Comhrá  14:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your assistance on this. --- Theoldanarchist  Comhrá  03:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Pasting from my talk page, not sure you'd see it there:
 * it wasn't a G4... G4 doesn't apply to articles that have been rewritten, or that were originally speedy deleted for that matter. --W.marsh 21:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Pity Dhaluza couldn't wait until I saw this before opening the Drv, where I note he has been a little loose with what he's requested of me. I thought G4 applied for some reason, thanks for the civil and helpful information. A little late, as you can see. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Mike Magee (journalist)
Can 2 people really constitute a consensus for deletion? For the record I oppose the deletion. I will take this to deletion review if needed. Citizensmith 13:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well there is no quorum at AFD. The question is whether this guy meets WP:BIO and WP:BLP or not, there really wasn't evidence of that in the AFD or the article, where the only reliable source seemed to be a passing mention. --W.marsh 13:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * He's extremely well known in IT circles (especially in the UK). He's also amused that he doesn't exist . Citizensmith 13:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC) The first deletion review resulted in a strong keep. Although there is no quroum for AFD, i contend that 2 people is clearly no consensus for anything thus the deletion was flawed and ask you to reconsider. He's listed in many other places - e.g. answers.com . Citizensmith 13:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Answers.com is a mirror of Wikipedia. You can take it to DRV again but attitudes have changed towards articles about living people without proper sources. --W.marsh 13:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of the history surrounding Mike Magee, The Register, The Inquirer and Wikipedia? If not you may want to look into it. This will be portrayed as vindictiveness on the part of Wikipedia - and in fact already is. Note it's the current top story on The Inquirer. Citizensmith 13:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about Mike Magee and am only casually aware of the Register, so any thoughts of vindictiveness on my part are incorrect. They might as well be being vindictive towards me because they know as much about me as I know about them. Again, you can present sources or you can argue that the article should exist even though you there aren't sources. The latter won't get you anywhere with me. --W.marsh 13:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Register and The Inquirer (both very high volume sites indexed by Google news - check a Google News search for Mike Magee at the moment) are surely valid primary sources in this case. He founded The Register and The Inquirer (a VNU publication) of which he is still editor. A quick google search finds many third party references (and a lot of pics for that matter). I would be happy to add some references were the article still there.Citizensmith 13:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, here it is: User:Citizensmith/Mike Magee (journalist). If moved to the article namespace it should look more like Judith Miller (journalist) for example and less like it currently does, e.g. proper citations to actual articles. Claims like "He co-founded The Register in 1994, which he left in 2001 to found another well known technology news website, The Inquirer." should be cited to a published source confirming that. It's basic Wikipedia biography stuff. --W.marsh 14:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Baseball jargon
W.marsh, my apologies, I'm bad tempered today, so my posts on the DRV page may have been more impatient and combattive than they should have been. I don't think that I have been truly uncivil yet (and I surely hope I haven't committed any personal attacks!), but I'll leave the page alone for a while and look for some less confrontational tasks on Wikipedia for now. It is not your fault, you made good arguments, even though I disagreed with some of them, but it's not the right time for me to argue this. If I have written anything there that you would rather see stricken or retracted, please tell me so, as I want to discuss earnestly but politely and constructively, not in this way. I'll see you around, and no hard feelings if the pages get undeleted anyway. Fram 14:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hypernova (band)
Hello. You had previously deleted the article about the band Hypernova because it was non-notable. Recently however, there have been several news articles about them: NPR, MTV, Middle East Times, ABC News, The Telegraph, and the New York Times. Do you think its ok now for me to create the article? Thanks.Hajji Piruz 02:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. The deleted article was 2 sentences and referenced to the band's myspace... but a new version with better sources should be okay. --W.marsh 02:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

 * Well, thanks! I'm slowly but surely going to finish the mayor articles. A few more years of my charging around like a bull in a china shop and your cleaning up after me, and the Louisville articles should really be something. --W.marsh 20:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Requesting assistance
I remember that you helped me when I was new, and I would like some assistance now. If you don't wish to get involved, no sweat.

I did some editing to NY 52, including adding some junctions a major bridge to the junction list and converting it to standard table usage. I have been reverted by project members. If you would like to give me some advice, or possibly contribute at Village pump (policy), it would be appreciated. Thank you. --NE2 22:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure... as for the table formatting, the version using NYInt looks a bit cleaner formatted, and it seems somewhat easier to use for editors (once it's already in an article). I'm also not really sure why the bridges would need to be on a list of intersections... maybe a separate list of bridges? Sorry I can't be more helpful... I'll try to think about it some more. --W.marsh 23:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation, which is necessary in many cases in New York (see Newburgh), requires another parameter that's not obvious, and cannot be done with the popups Javascript. It's also easier for new editors to learn one format - table formatting - than a separate one for each project. With infoboxes, it's necessary because of the commonalities, but here it's just an ordinary table with intersections.
 * Bridges are, technically, intersections with rivers, but I admit that's a rather weak argument; the intersection list is essentially a "quick look" at the highway so you don't have to read the description. Putting bridges on a separate list breaks up the order; a major bridge like the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge is a landmark, and can help a reader who is familiar with the road find the intersection they want more easily. In addition, there are already non-intersections (the tan background, which is a crossing with no access - rather confusing if you don't know what the tan background means), and other junction lists, such as Interstate 895 (Maryland) and Tilghman Street - the latter made by some of the same people as here - include bridges and tunnels. --NE2 00:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to see Requests for comment/NE2, in which the above comments are referred to. --NE2 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * thank you for the notification, it was very fair to do so. I'll keep an eye on the RFC, and I'm still thinking about the issue... I'm just kind of out of my element with road disputes. I can barely figure out what to do with articles on the roads I drive every day :-) --W.marsh 04:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

History of slavery in Kentucky
Looks like you're off to a good start on History of slavery in Kentucky. While doing some research for Kentucky in the American Civil War, I ran across the following book that has some interesting pages on the topic of slavery in the Commonwealth: Can't seem to find an ISBN, but maybe that's enough info for you to find it if you're interested. Acdixon 14:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll add it as a "further reading" as I found an ISBN on Amazon. --W.marsh 14:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Smallville AfD
You closed this AfD as non-consensus, but the information was a content fork of Smallville (season 7) and should not have been allowed to exist anyway. The problem is, as shown by the log the proper page was already deleted several times, most recently on June 21. The Smallville Season 7 title was created to circumvent the initial deletion. It seems quite odd, and a bit unfair, that a page would be deleted one day and then an incorrect page would be moved to that title so bypass the deletion. Not to mention that the article currently does nothing but summarize the last episode of season 6 (which we already have done on that page) and then provide a vague date for when the new season will start (which is already covered at at the main article for the show). There won't be anything to put on the page until about a couple weeks to a month before the show actually airs, which won't be until at least September.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the big need to delete it just so it can be recreated again in a few months. There seems to be verifiable information about season 7 in Smallville (TV series), I just don't see the need to not work on the season 7 article until the last minute. --W.marsh 14:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * All the work on it comes as the season goes, because they usually only release about 5 episode titles before the season actually begins, and directors/writers are sometimes not even listed until the actual episode is about to air. The existence, to me, only serves to fuel the idea that people can circumvent descisions by created articles by an improper name and later moving them. The AfD for the one article had like 5 people discussing it, and none were the ones that decided on the multiple deletions the actual article had gone through, nor the recent one just 3 days ago. To me it's just the principle of the issue.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The deletions of the article were procedural due to lack of content, which didn't apply to the one at AFD. At any rate there's verifiable information in the main article apparently, so if there is going to be a season 7 article at some point, there can be one now. --W.marsh 15:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There isn't anymore content in the article than was deleted before. We knew months ago there was going to be a season 7. It was still deleted because it was breeding ground for speculation and vandalism of people "knowing" what the episode titles were going to be.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But there is verifiable information in the main article apparently... "Kara Zor-El, Clark's biological cousin, will be introduced in the season 7 premiere. She will appear in approximately half of the season's episodes. According to Gough and Millar, she was sent to look after Kal-El (Clark), but was stuck in suspended animation for sixteen years. When the dam broke in the season 6 finale, "Phantom", it set her free. She will have all of Clark's abilities, as well as a few that he doesn't have at the moment, including the ability to fly.[50] Gough has also stated that she will not wear any version of the Supergirl costume.[51]" This seems enough to support a placeholder article until more information is available. I really know nothing about Smallville or its editors on Wikipedia, this just seems like a basic move to make, and really not a big deal. Drawn-out discussion of deleting an article that everyone knows will be recreated soon is a waste of time. --W.marsh 15:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's covered there, so currently the article is nothing but a content fork for what's already covered in other places. That theory is like saying "let's create a film article because FOX says they want to make a film by this title". Nothing actually says it will be made, because they haven't even started filming the first episode of that season yet. It just seems hypocritical (not you) to have it exist on the grounds that "it will be out" when we AfD and delete film articles who have the same belief but are still not proof that the film will be out.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But we create articles on confirmed upcoming films all the time, Category:Upcoming films. Once something has been confirmed and there's information to use, then an article is fair game. If there isn't actually confirmation that there will be a season 7 of Smallville, I'll delete the article, but my understanding based on the main article was that there was confirmation. --W.marsh 15:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Upcoming films are generally for films that are actually in production and are definitely coming out (like The Dark Knight, and not for things like Spider-Man 4, which has been talked about being made but nothing solid has actually been done. Although, there are plenty that slip by, most of us over who work on the film articles try and get those redirected to a parent article on the grounds that anything that can happen to cause a film not to even reach the production phase, same with television shows. The confirmation was that it was on the CW's fall schedule. They haven't started producing any episodes, haven't named any episodes, may not have even written any episodes at the moment. They are all on their summer breaks before all that stuff starts to get together. Oh well, I just find it a little off. Don't worry about it, nothing to do about it now.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Flaget High School
There is something deeply and fundamentally wrong with the AfD process, exemplified by the AfD nomination of Flaget High School within 10 minutes of creation. As created, the article had ample claims of notability, such that tagging for sources would have been far more appropriate than an AfD. While I recognize that there are those who are trying to "protect" Wikipedia from problematic articles, this did not fit that bill. No editor -- newbie, long-time editor or admin -- should have to face this process so quickly. Alansohn 20:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it happens. I don't really mind since I think any article I create will survive an AFD, and if it happens, I will defend it. It is somewhat frustrating though... at least this one has no chance of getting the article deleted. I just wish someone would close the AFD so I can nominate it at WP:DYK. That's an amusing requirement though, requiring people to actually create a decent article first before making AFD nominations, I suspect that would prohibit some of our most prominent deletionists from making nominations :-) Thanks for adding references to the article, by the way. --W.marsh 20:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: To Notibilty issues on Village Pump
I read the page and your responce.... Would this be suitible ? VincE07 23:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite... at least it's not to where it would have the best chance of surviving deletion yet. It should cite published articles on this person, e.g. newspapers, magazines, etc. I linked to a good source for these on the Village Pump thread. You can see WP:CITE for help on doing citations. --W.marsh 00:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Source Sites
Im thinking on putting these in.... Also should I post his articles up....This thing is really confusing me (only 14)....anyway so what your trying to say is if you dont want it deleted source your information like below?

 
 * Well, those URLs aren't working for me, but yes, if they're published articles on him and you cite them in the article, it will decrease the chance of anyone wanting to delete the article. You can use the template cite news for the citations if they're newspaper stories. --W.marsh 01:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * Well thank you! I am still learning the ropes and hope to help out more. DYK is an interesting place. --W.marsh 15:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Question
Hi. I have a question. I believe it was you that deleted the "A Tree Full of Secrets" page (if not, I apologize). I'm curious though - why? It was a very helpful page for people who were interested in it, and I often referenced things from there. Can it be brought back?

Thanks. Torenko 13:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Torenko
 * Well it was deleted per the discussion here: Articles for deletion/A Tree Full of Secrets (2nd nomination). Do you have anything to add? The arguments for deletion seemed strong. It could be recreated as a redirect to Pink Floyd, or recreated as an article with improved sources to address the problems pointed out in the above discussion. --W.marsh 13:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OTRS
If you think OTRS is such a simple job, I suggest you apply for it. You obviously seem extremely willing to speak your mind and help out. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  14:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think OTRS is a simple job. It's still a job that should be done properly... and if it's done problematically, that's a big problem. I am not going to volunteer for it though, it's really not something people even should be volunteering for at all, in my opinion. --W.marsh 14:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've restored the article, you can go back to editing it now. Thanks for the patience, and sorry for the delays, but it's just something we have to live with. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  23:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)