User talk:Retired username/Archive15

Indian Army Infantry Regiments
Hi,

You deleted the page I mention above because of copyvio, see User_talk:Ajay_ijn. May I request that the contents be pasted to a user subpage of mine so that I can address the issues. While the cut & paste text copyvio will definitely be done away with, please note that the total number and names of Indian Army Infantry Regiments is definitive and any such list will be identical to the web site except perhaps for sequence, though there is a established precedence in Indian Army for mentioning them in sequence based on their seniority of raising.

Thanks in advance, AshLin 05:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't undelete something if it was a copyright violation... you'll need to rewrite any prose from scratch. As for the lists, it is okay to adapt them for Wikipedia usually... but presumably you still have access to them on the other webpage. --W.marsh 12:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

How to add an institute page?
I want to add an article about my institute IMK which conducts management programmes like MBA.Please explain to me how to create a page without being deleted and also on how to add the contents column and the profile on the side.
 * Well, write in your own words, but summarize published sources, not official press releases and your own personal knowledge. Beyond that, you might see Help:Infobox for what you mean by "profile on the side", and Tutorial for basic guide to editting pages. --W.marsh 13:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of my own writing for copyright violation
I would like you to restore the article which you deleted (History of Chaves) since this article is a copy of my own article on my own website, which I personally created. Before you delete articles I think it would be polite to ask about the history of the article. Let me repeat: I am the author of the website about Chaves and I am the author the History of Chaves article, which I thought would be nice to take to a larger audience than my own website could accomplish. Vogensen 18:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See Donating copyrighted materials --W.marsh 18:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your answer is far from satisfactory and does not explain why you deleted the article. Vogensen 19:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because we delete copyright violations... the page should explain what releasing the copyright means and how to do it. --W.marsh 19:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

AAOS
please don't delete "AAOS" the a copyright is ours at http://www.aaos.org/about/about.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tewahedo (talk • contribs)
 * See Donating copyrighted materials --W.marsh 19:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angulo
the description of the write up is the same for the reason that the yahoo group angulo_music is the official yahoo group of the Angulo band. The write up or short description of the band was written by my friend. I wasnt able to add the yahoo group link to the external links for i forgot. When i logged on again to add it, the whole article is already deleted. Do i have to rewrite the description though it is originally written by my friend? Tell me what to do, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilfingers (talk • contribs)
 * It's really best to write in your own words. But see WP:MUSIC, if the band doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines, writing an article might be a waste of your time. --W.marsh 13:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please take another look
Would you take another look at this article? It was flagged by HB on SCV. You said an earlier version had copied phrases with others slightly rewritten. I've been back and forth with the author for the past several hours and would prefer someone fresh to review the latest revision. He says he'll be working on it again tomorrow. I haven't reviewed the latest version enough to judge it, but I did delete a prior version as a moderately paraphrased copyvio. Thanks!! -- But | seriously | folks   07:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's still close... some sentences like "The entire body of the Mound started to collapse, splitting in half." appear in both articles. Why is it so hard to get people to not copy and paste? It's not like you can copy and paste by accident... they know what they're doing. --W.marsh 13:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I wished your attitude was less withdrawn, impersonal, and disenchanting. You already spent considerable amount of time with this article like the two of us. A simple note to me about your further concerns would have gone a long way, but you prefer to do it like a bully. Why is that? Copying and pasting for inspiration, in a process of composing something new, is not that different from photocopying a page at your local library, is it? What counts though, is the intention of respecting the original source which I've already expressed in my exchange with User:Bsf. --Poeticbent talk  18:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just don't copy and paste copyrighted text, okay? Write in your own words, it's that simple. The argument that you can use a hodgepodge of phrases from various copyrighted articles has been made before and rejected. That's called creating a derivative work, which needs permission from the original copyright holder, and it's something we can't distribute legally under the GFDL. --W.marsh 18:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Roger that." --Poeticbent talk  18:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, may I ask you to move this article back to mainspace? Thanks. --Poeticbent talk  14:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Done --W.marsh 14:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sorry to trouble you with that. --  But | seriously | folks   20:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A well-deserved barnstar!

 * Thanks! It's not exactly the lawyers... although I guess that is a concern, but stolen content just makes us look bad. It goes against what we're trying to create. --W.marsh 14:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Bradenburg, Kentucky
I was looking over at your contribs, or something else, and I by accident pressed it. I didn't know I pressed the button until you pointed it out to me. At first I thought my account got hacked. -- Maxim (talk)  20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Air barriers
you deleted my site for 'air barriers' and 'air barrier association of america (abaa)'.. the reason i used the text from the web site is that i WORK FOR the association.. i'm just trying to get things started so our members can begin to contribute..
 * Using official material is not a good idea... that information is written for promotional purposes, which is incompatible with Wikipedia. If your members want to write about the company or its products, they can.. it's best to avoid doing so yourself, see WP:COI. --W.marsh 21:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

BASSC
How are you supposed to create an entry about an official body without at least partially duplicating info from that official bodies site? And I am a member of the BASSC so what does it matter? Marysiak 14:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * By writing it in your own words and not copy/pasting anything. Wikipedia content needs to be free of copyright. --W.marsh 14:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 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 06:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Request
Hi, if you think I fulfil the criteria set there, could you endorse my request to User:Betacommand/Commons. It might not really be necessary anymore since single login seems to be finally coming, but it still might be practical in the meantime. And no, I don't think I will transwiki Neil's images like that anytime soon. (I just read that discussion on AN/I). Garion96 (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm I don't really understand what's being asked of me exactly... I don't have time to help out with the process right now. I don't object to my images being moved, but most images I've uploaded directly to Wikipedia I think are ones I thought would just be useful here. --W.marsh 01:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Should have been more clear. Betacommandbot only moves images tagged by a trusted user. To become a trusted user you have to be endorsed by another trusted user, like here. You happen to be a trusted user so you could (if you want) endorse me. Garion96 (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It worked, I am in. Gotta love rules, but in this case it does make sense. Commons already has a hard enough time dealing with copyvio's. Thanks, Garion96 (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

dear sir,

on my additions to 'The 414s' page the published references you have have no references themself, and they are wrong. i plea bargained to a couple of misdemeaner charges that were "harrassing phone calls over state lines" even though my computer did the digital communication. i never harrassed anyone, nor did i damage or cause loss to anyone. i took the blame for a lot of people, because they were my friends.

i've never spoke to the press because i knew they get there story wrong, but i dont want to known for something i did not due. do you want the truth, or just published articles from big buisiness?

i would like my comment added to the page as a direct quote, as my records have been sealed and your article itself can no longer be verified. i can give you proof to my identity, by fax or email.

Gerald Wondra

thanks!
mr. marsh,

thank you so much for understanding and the hard work it took to make this story even better and more complete. i would have talked to the media more at the time, but they are just horrible sensationalists, and i only felt real remorse (still do).

thanks again! gerald wondra --Geraldwondra 19:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

lucas abela deletion
hi for some reason you took it apon yourself to delete an entry about my work

i hadn't written or added to the page in any way even though some of the infomation was wrong, i have no idea who created the page and wonder why you some peron on the other side of the earth seams to think he would know whether or not a peformer is 'non- notable'?

for that assertion you would need to know the names and careers of all perfomers of 'note' something i sincerely doubt

i am not an amature and perform my work at highly regaurded festivals around the world, its unfortunate that some hick from kentucky thinks he know everything about everything and should make such calls, the person or persons that created my page obviously thought i was note worthy enough.

i noticed there is a page on yourself how marvelous a noteable wiki contributor you must be proud

wanker

lucas abela —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.159.92 (talk) 08:11, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh please see above... 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. but calling me names doesn't help... --W.marsh 12:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

zibellino
It's even ruder to remove someone else's article as well, as you did. Johnbod 13:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI
I have posted a thread regardign this at WP:ANI here. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. Thanks! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Image permissions
Stevie suggested that you might be the one to ask about this. I'd like to ask the Kentucky Department of Libraries and Archives for permission to use all of the governor's portraits from their site in Wikipedia. If I am able to secure this permission, how do I go about providing evidence of this agreement to "The Keepers of the Wiki"? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 03:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the permission would have to extend beyond Wikipedia... due to philosophical reasons any images used here except under fair use have to be images allowed for any use by anybody, including modification and sale. The best thing for them to do would be considering licensing them under the Creative Commons attribution license... the terms of which are here: . They could either indicate this by e-mail or modify their webpage to confirm it... then the images could be uploaded to Wikipedia selecting that as the license. A lot more about this can be read at Donating copyrighted materials. --W.marsh 03:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 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 07:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ayelet weinerman
Hey there W.marsh - would you mind if I restored the above page so I can userfy it to work on?  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, go for it... and I'll trust your judgment to move it back to the article space when it's rewritten enough. --W.marsh 23:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah it'll take a bit of work - I didn't have enough time when it was at AfD but hopefully I can get something sorted now. Cheers sir.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  23:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Puget Custom Computers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puget_Custom_Computers You deleted my Puget Custom Computers article, citing http://tubious.com/puget-custom-computers, saying that it is "blatant marketing material" ? Are you kidding me? This is a copy of my page, my page isn't a copy of IT. Did you read the discussion page before you deleted? Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. I'll be re-submitting the page. If you have any concerns, please feel free to enter into discussion on the talk page before you delete.--Eb1232 04:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

about an article lacking scources
Hello, I require some help in editing this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakolath_Ramachandran

I created the article in question.Wikipedia states that it lacks definitive sources.the websites from which,the information has been gathered have already been posted.what further changes have to be made?

thanks, Amog 08:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably just to convert to inline citations, see WP:CITE. --W.marsh 13:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Will also add a reference paragraph to the end.
 * All right.Will make the changes.

I also happen to be the man's grandson.

Does this count me as an authentic source? Amog 07:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, articles shouldn't contain firsthand information that can't be backed up by published sources. --W.marsh 17:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay.Whatever information posted have,in fact been taken from the website(s) quoted.

may i remove the "unreferenced" tag?

Amog 07:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

truly amazing
!votes at Deletion Review. If the position for endorsing holds, I am going to propose removing A7 altogether. Obviously, no admin --including myself most certainly --should have that kind of discretion. I make no claim to being a judge of articles. I'm going to mention this also at talk page for speedy and for deletion policy, but of course without stating my position. DGG (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm less and less surprised at the new extremes to which deletionism seems to be creeping. Good luck... I'll chime in as much as I can. I still think A7 is a good idea in theory... but apparently I apply it much differently than most people. --W.marsh 16:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

MissCast
Hi, not sure how to go about this but I am the author of both pages, the one I just wrote on wikipedia and the one that's a supposed copyright infringement of www.cdbaby.com/cd/farnsworth It's just another version of Anne Farnsworth's bio. Any suggestions would be much appreciated. Thanks. misscast@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by MissCast (talk • contribs)

correction for The 414s page
dear sir,

on my additions to 'The 414s' page the published references you have have no references themself, and they are wrong. i plea bargained to a couple of misdemeaner charges that were "harrassing phone calls over state lines" even though my computer did the digital communication. i never harrassed anyone, nor did i damage or cause loss to anyone. i took the blame for a lot of people, because they were my friends.

i've never spoke to the press because i knew they get there story wrong, but i dont want to known for something i did not due. do you want the truth, or just published articles from big buisiness?

i would like my comment added to the page as a direct quote, as my records have been sealed and your article itself can no longer be verified. i can give you proof to my identity, by fax or email.

Gerald Wondra —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldwondra (talk • contribs) 18:17, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

misinformation
but it's ok to enter a comment at the end without my name? i've been checking, and the reference you got was from 'Enter Magazine' that was printed in the Detroit Free Press. Enter magazine definately made up that statement, and if you look carefully at the many other articles that have my name in them, New York Post, Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, Newsweek Magazine, none of them make this inference. you should be able to de-duce from this that the statement that i destroyed a file without proof is defamation. Please re-write the page using the above references or let me have my say. thank you, gerald wondra —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldwondra (talk • contribs) 18:49, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

line in article
mr. marsh,

i've been reading about the wikipedia rules and i would at the least like to have the line:

"Gerald Wondra, 22 at the time, was the first visited by the FBI. Wondra lived with his mother in West Allis, a Milwaukee suburb, and had done the damage to the Sloan-Kettering computers."

edited so as to not state that i had done damage to the Sloan-Kettering computers. Enter magazine was not a relialble source implying this, and according to the wikipedia rules:

"Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to the law in Florida, United States and to our content policies

* Neutral point of view (NPOV) * Verifiability * No original research

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.

An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP)s must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. If you have concerns, either as editor or subject, about biographical material about a living person on any page, please alert us on the BLP noticeboard."

the statement that i caused damage can not be verified in any "high quality reference", and "We must get the article right.[1]" this article may do me harm in finding a job, and i would appreciate it if you could re-write it with each statement having more than one published source.

thank you, gerald wondra —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldwondra (talk • contribs) 19:25, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Caitlin Upton
Hello. I am totally shocked at this. Can you please have a look at this article and see what's going on? Appartnetly we are to have an AfD discussion on a blanked page with only a poorly written stub burried deep in the article history to reference. No editor can make any improvements on it. --Oakshade 02:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of PAAMCO
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on PAAMCO, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because PAAMCO is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting PAAMCO, 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. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 07:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Second Lady of the United States
As noted in my comments on the Second Lady of the United States AFD page, I agree with you that since "Second Lady of the United States" is not an officially recognized title, it should not be used as the the title of a Wikipedia article, but I do believe that some of the article's content should be retained under a different more acceptable name. I also think that questions you have raised regarding this article are also applicable to the related similarly-named category, (Category:Second Ladies of the United States), which should probably be renamed along with the article, although I am not sure if we should wait until the AFD vote on the article is closed before formally initiating any action with respect to the category. --TommyBoy 18:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably... hopefully whoever closes the AFD will give a clear statement and set some kind of precedent. The big problem for me was how articles like Barbara Bush present this as some official or at least widely used title... when really it just seems like some thing Wikipedia editors use. We'll see what happens... hopefully someone (maybe me) has the energy to clean up the articles in question. A rename will probably be the best solution for the article itself. --W.marsh 18:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured Picture Candidate
i would like to nominate your picture of the Levy Building to Featured Pictures, but am having problems with that page. Is there an easier way? Angry Aspie 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but they have extremely high standards at featured pictures, I'm sure it would fail there. What problems are you referring to? The process should be explained at Featured picture candidates --W.marsh 18:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops
Sorry about that. The page is a mess :) (over 31kb already). ~   Wi ki  her mit  23:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was afraid I'd done the same thing and gotten reverted for it... a million people trying to edit a page at once isn't pretty. --W.marsh 23:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 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. R Delivery Bot 05:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't delete my Wikipedia Entry.
Dear W. Marsh,

Thank you for challenging my Wikipedia entry. I appreciate your candor and would like to discuss your concern personally.

I intend on making my Wikipedia page as objective, as encyclopedic as possible and thank you for your initiative in engaging in this academic discussion with me on whether my article meets Wikipedia standards. Please feel free to contact me at any one of the below extensions at any time, day or night.

Until this issue is resolved, I will continue to publicly dispute your argument.

Regards,

John Philip Becker, Student / Consultant Xavier University Class of 2008 C/o Williams College of Business 3800 Victory Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45207 USA

JPB Consulting, Marketing, Advertising, Press, & Publicity Solutions 6964 Glen Arbor Dr, Florence, KY 41042 USA

Tel: 513-652-3132 [c] 				M-F 7A-12A, Sa-Su 12P-12A 859-647-0877 [h] 				M-F 7A-7P, Sa-Su 12P-7P

AOL Instant Messenger Screen Name: New Wave Escape

newwaveescape@gmail.com newwaveescape@yahoo.com newwaveescape@hotmail.com

http://www.newwaveescape.com http://www.myspace.com/newwaveescape
 * Uh, what was your entry? If you're writing about your own company, it's extremely difficult to do so without it coming off as advertising, which we delete. --W.marsh 17:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Pedro 2 RfA
Surely the only relevant question is whether you trust him with the tools. Your comment implies that you would. So, the heaps of co-noms look silly (not his doing) and his mainspace contributions look weak, but if you've established he's not likely to misapply policy in a foolish way... not sure why you're still at neutral. --Dweller 14:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno, it seems co-nom mania only happens with people who spend an inordinate amount of time at RFA. That, combined with not writing articles, have been two key qualities present in people I've seen actually misuse the tools. It's not a strong enough correlation to oppose, like I said he seems much improved from his last RFA... I just don't feel like I can support at this time. --W.marsh 15:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Personally, from my review of his contrbs. I think he's v unlikely to abuse the tools, and seems to have the humility we want from admins. --Dweller 15:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Old Louisville
Hi. You may want to review today's major changes by User:Angry Aspie to see if they make sense. Since you are the guru on that article, I figured I'd let you take a stab at it. Stevie is the man! Talk &bull; Work 19:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I had tried to verify the regions and descriptions at one point... it didn't seem all verifiable. I think maybe some resident of OL wrote the section from personal knowledge at some point. Going by census tracts might make more sense. Some of his other edits have been a bit suspect... I've reverted some of them. At some point I'll probably try to make it a featured article again and go over the article and fix everything as best I can. --W.marsh 19:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds cool. Thanks.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 22:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 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. R Delivery Bot 21:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

delete please
Hi, you just deleted User talk:MC Snowy/monobook.css and User talk:MC Snowy/monobook.js; can you also delete the actual redirect pages? ie User:MC Snowy/monobook.css and User:MC Snowy/monobook.js Thanks. —MC 21:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done --W.marsh 22:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —MC 23:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Restore please
Please restor the Xplorar article. There were only 2 people saying thewir opinion on the discussion page, me saying keep and another one saying Speedy delete. There wasnt even a fool-scale discussion. What it needs is being rewritten. M.V.E.i. 13:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It can be rewritten at any time... but I can't undelete a copyright violation. You'd need to start a new article in your own words. --W.marsh 13:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point! Understood. M.V.E.i. 14:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please restore the Beyond Compare article. I added it to be link to from the Comparison of File Comparison tools. As a user of the product I did NOT want to put in inaccurate data, so I (with permission) copied out the feature list from the official site. If you look at OTHER articles linked from that comparison page you'll see similar contents. This is a valuable place to concentrate the feature list for comparison. Marc C. Brooks 04:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It was promotional, not encyclopedic, in tone... due to where it was copied from. You would need to rewrite it in your own words, using information from published sources... then it should be fine. --W.marsh 12:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

ipeps page deletion
dear W. Marsh

I note you have deleted wiki page on IPEPS. Reason - copyright infringement. I do not believe this to be the case. No copyright violation was apparent on the page. The page referenced appears to be an IT peripheral distributor. IPEPS is terminology used to describe the allocation of IP engines to individial servers to allow secure control of the server itself. Please reconsider this deletion.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.213.49 (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As it says at the top of this page, I'll need a link to the specific page in question. --W.marsh 13:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Melanie Lu
Morning. I speedy delete flagged this as the user had blanked it and recreated it a couple of minutes later under Beijing Baby which I prod-ed for notability reasons, which obviously someone else agreed with. As you reverted, I've prod-ed the "content" filled version now, for the same reason. --Blowdart 05:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well you actually CSD'd it for having no content, but there was content in the history, that's the reason I reverted. --W.marsh 13:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * At one stage it didn't. I notice there's an ongoing "I'm going to remove the prod" edit, "I replace the prod" nonsense going on. Another user tagged it for speedy delete, which you killed, but didn't replace my preceding prod. So should I add my slow prod back, or are you of the opinion that it's notable enough to stay? --Blowdart 17:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the PROD, hence I left it up. I've just been making sure this didn't get speedy deleted for invalid reasons. --W.marsh 17:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, apparently I removed the tag by mistake, I've restored it. --W.marsh 17:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool; lets see how long it lasts before another IP only removal happens. --Blowdart 19:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Raasgat
Hi, W.marsh! You had responded to my comment on the above user's activities at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive295. I posted a few more things there that no one had responded to and I wanted your thoughts. Since posting there, has begun editing again and in this diff, created the same style of headings preferred by all three. In my opinion, this account switching might be avoiding scrutiny from other editors. I don't want to seem too aggressive since it's not obscene vandalism, but when confronted with a plea to stick to guidelines, the user is rude and jumps from one account to another to avoid scrutiny. Your thoughts? Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's little doubt that they're all socks of Venter... it's really an odd situation though because he seems to have stopped with the copyright violations, which was the only reason anyone had a problem with User:Paul venter. If he just wants to start a new, non-copyright-violating identity, and that's how he feels comfortable contributing... I don't see how that's a bad thing for Wikipedia, because he does seem to make good edits when he writes his own stuff. If there's any new evidence of copyvios though, I think it will be time to move on to a checkuser and get him restricted to one account. --W.marsh 12:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

J. Holiday
An editor has asked for a deletion review of J. Holiday. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ۝ ۞ ░ 20:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I could have sworn I unprotected that the the first time! :) The confusion is all me, but its fixed now.  Best wishes, Xoloz 11:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

American College of Zoological Medicine
American College of Zoological Medicine was gutted beyond where it should have been nicely edited. Just my opinion. You should have left information that was of intellectual value. I made adjustments to allow for future internal links and added text that describes what the college does. Noles1984 15:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Copyright violation text has to be removed, even if it would otherwise be really good to include in an article. --W.marsh 16:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 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 03:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Lou Page --> Sides of Town
Dubya,

there seems to be a strong correlation btw ancestory (spef. German vs 'American) in defining the sides of town in Louisville. You can use the links to see if you think this should be added to the article.

German ancestry: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-context=tm&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00120&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-CONTEXT=tm&-tree_id=403&-all_geo_types=N&-geo_id=05000US21111&-format=&-_lang=en

American ancestry: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-context=tm&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00137&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-tm_config=|b=50|l=en|t=403|zf=0.0|ms=thm_def|dw=1.148890036950099|dh=0.6818827619692738|dt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.EnglishMapExtent|if=gif|cx=-85.676856|cy=38.188964999999996|zl=6|pz=6|bo=|bl=|ft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331|fl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368|g=05000US21111|ds=DEC_2000_SF3_U|sb=50|tud=false|db=060|mn=2.4|mx=28.5|cc=1|cm=1|cn=5|cb=|um=Percent|pr=1|th=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00120|sf=N|sg=&-CONTEXT=tm&-tree_id=403&-redoLog=false&-all_geo_types=N&-geo_id=05000US21111&-format=&-_lang=en

Median family income: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-context=tm&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00266&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-tm_config=|b=50|l=en|t=403|zf=0.0|ms=thm_def|dw=1.148890036950099|dh=0.6720004031001539|dt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.EnglishMapExtent|if=gif|cx=-85.676856|cy=38.188964999999996|zl=6|pz=6|bo=|bl=|ft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331|fl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368|g=05000US21111|ds=DEC_2000_SF3_U|sb=50|tud=false|db=060|mn=4.6|mx=19.7|cc=1|cm=1|cn=5|cb=|um=Percent|pr=1|th=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00137|sf=N|sg=&-CONTEXT=tm&-tree_id=403&-redoLog=false&-all_geo_types=N&-geo_id=05000US21111&-format=&-_lang=en

% College Educated: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-context=tm&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00072&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-tm_config=|b=50|l=en|t=403|zf=0.0|ms=thm_def|dw=1.148890036950099|dh=0.6720004031001539|dt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.EnglishMapExtent|if=gif|cx=-85.676856|cy=38.188964999999996|zl=6|pz=6|bo=|bl=|ft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331|fl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368|g=05000US21111|ds=DEC_2000_SF3_U|sb=50|tud=false|db=060|mn=23902|mx=79878|cc=1|cm=1|cn=5|cb=|um=Dollars|pr=0|th=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00266|sf=N|sg=&-CONTEXT=tm&-tree_id=403&-redoLog=false&-all_geo_types=N&-geo_id=05000US21111&-format=&-_lang=en

I think this clearly defines the East Side and South Sides borders.

Angry Aspie 17:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the American Vs. German (or other European descent) thing is interesting. Obviously all "white" Americans are of European descent, but it varies by region and education level as to what percent will identify their actual ancestry, verses ones that will claim "American" ancestry. It is probably not helpful to speculate at the motives for this discrepancy, but it's there, and it's useful to know that white people in the east end probably have the same general patterns of descent as white people in the west end, people in the east end are just more likely to state a more correct ancestry, for whatever reason. At any rate, I think the stats from the latter two links would probably be useful to mention in the article... the ancestry is probably hopelessly muddled, due to facts largely beyond the Census's control. Median income level would be quite interesting to note... with the highest in the extreme Northeast of the county, 2nd highest in the general "east" parts of the county (east of Bardstown Road more or less), mid-range in the South end, and lowest in the west end. --W.marsh 18:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The relevance of American vs German is that nearly all areas of the rural South (including KY) American is the most common listed ancestry. {See posted link for Am. anc. for KY below} Higher income people, or people whose ancestors came later, tend to list their orig country of orgin as ancestry.

For Jefferson County, this means that the South End is significantly less German as most people are of British Isles descend from the late 1700s through the civil war. By comparison, the descendants of the late 1800s German immigrants are located in the East End (E of US 31E, N of I-264 E of I-65. Actually, I would say that Portland and West End whites are mostly of Irish immigrants, and are distinct even from the South End.

Note: Areas with high poverty are where Am-anc most common KY American Ancestry: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-context=tm&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00137&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-CONTEXT=tm&-tree_id=403&-all_geo_types=N&-geo_id=04000US21&-format=&-_lang=en

US American Ancestry: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-tree_id=403&-_MapEvent=displayBy&-context=tm&-errMsg=&-all_geo_types=N&-_useSS=N&-_dBy=040&-redoLog=false&-_zoomLevel=&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00137&-tm_config=|b=50|l=en|t=403|zf=0.0|ms=thm_def|dw=1.9557697048764706E7|dh=1.4455689123E7|dt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.LSRMapExtent|if=gif|cx=-1159354.4733499996|cy=7122022.5|zl=10|pz=10|bo=|bl=|ft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331|fl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368|g=01000US|ds=DEC_2000_SF3_U|sb=50|tud=false|db=050|mn=0|mx=53.7|cc=1|cm=1|cn=5|cb=|um=Percent|pr=1|th=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00137|sf=N|sg=&-PANEL_ID=tm_result&-_pageY=&-_lang=en&-_pageX=&-geo_id=01000US&-CONTEXT=tm&-_mapY=&-_mapX=&-_latitude=&-format=&-_pan=&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_longitude=&-_changeMap=Identify Angry Aspie 20:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think trying to draw conclusions from the census information is probably too much original work for Wikipedia, I'd suggest leaving the ancestral stuff out, although it might make for a really interesting paper (if only the Filson Quarterly were still being published). But some of the information on there, like income levels, is very promising for the Wikipedia article. --W.marsh 17:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Any particular reason why this was removed?
Hello: My name is David Domine and I also live in Louisville. Can you tell me why the info about Louisville touting itself as the most haunted neighborhood in the country and the mention of my books GHOSTS OF OLD LOUISVILLE and PHANTOMS OF OLD LOUISVILLE needed to be removed from the original Wikipedia article about Old Louisville? From what little I know, that claim holds some merit, and I would be more than happy to do whatever necessary to include mention of my books in the Wikipedia entry about Old Louisville.

Thanks!

David Domine davidram13@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.78.85 (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you can point to a third party article (LEO, Courier-Journal, etc.) about your books and Old Louisville, we can summarize that and cite it in the Old Louisville article. I will take a look eventually and try to find an article, but I'm pretty busy at the moment to be tracking down articles. But if you provide an external article I'll try to update the Wikipedia article accordingly.--W.marsh 02:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 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. R Delivery Bot 02:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Bend Over Boyfriend
I added some references to Bend Over Boyfriend. If you have the time, please consider working them into the article. -- Jreferee    t / c  19:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Refimprove
I'm not usually one to engage in discussions of Wikipedia philosophy and policy, but I was reading the deletion discussion for the above template and I was rather puzzled to see an admin state "But why does it need more references? The only real reason is if specific statements are challenged... there's no need to reference statements no one questions, like 'the sky is blue'. Again, you said it's helpful, but I'm not seeing any specific examples where it's been helpful." Granted, I am also at a loss to give concrete examples of this template brilliantly fulfilling its aim, but I'm fairly certain I also have many fewer edits than those that were involved in the discussion. I digress somewhat, but I was under the impression that verifiability is a cornerstone of Wikipedia and therefore multiple references, regardless of challenges for inclusion to specific material, are desirable if not required. Sorry to ramble on, but I was hoping you might shed further light on your persepctive for this novice editor. Thanks for your time, dfg 23:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Verifiability and inline citations after every sentence are not necessarily the same thing... I do think all of our information should come from published, reliably accessible sources, in 2005-2006 I actually pushed to cement verifiability as something that's not optional (believe it or not, verifiability once effectively could be overridden by consensus), but I'm not as active with those discussions anymore. Verifiability predates uniform inline citations, and verifiability doesn't actually require inline citations. All verifiability is, is the concept that information in our articles is just a summary of published sources. Until 2006 many fine article writers wouldn't even dream of using inline citations, and yet they work our finest articles. Inline citations make it easier to verify individual claims, but a list of references used in an article, composed in good faith, accomplishes the same purpose. I think inline citations are preferable, but inline citations just as decorations are a waste of our time. If no one doubts a claim, there's no need to have an inline citation except to decorate the article. Hope that helps. --W.marsh 00:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. I now see that I agree with your sentiments regarding verifiability, but I didn't previously interpret the refimprove template as stating specific material requires verification. I understood it merely to be a request for additional sources, and therefore working in conjunction with fact and not being superceded by it. I do, however, now have a practical example that I hope you have time to offer insight into: at Vertigo (film), I recently added two references for two items under "Cultural Impact" (which could be considered trivia to some, but that's a whole 'nuther subject which I won't get into now), and noted that there were no references for the body of the article. I added something to the talk page expressing dismay, and since then there has been a single reference added to a more substantial, yet still somewhat tangential part of the article. The current tag atop the article is unreferenced, which is technically incorrect. Given that the film is a rather important piece of American cinema, would you not agree that refimprove would be appropriate in this instance? Thanks again, dfg 00:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, to counter, look at Friends... a topic I know nothing about, but had a refimprove tag parked there for months. Someone finally added fact tags, and within hours I was able to add 13 references and remove several questionable claims. That's a direct way to improve an article... making someone guess what the claims that need referencing are, that just seems like a waste of time. My only goal was to help us direct people's energy more productively... doing a good job of that is how Wikipedia succeeds. I just don't think vague tags are very helpful. As for Vertigo, adding references to claims like that it was directed by Alfred Hitchcock or starred Jimmy Stewart just seems like an utter waste of time... but if there are specific claims that need referencing, looking at them seems like a fine way to improve the article... because you often see facts are slightly off, someone misunderstood a source, etc. --W.marsh 00:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Requesting that my revision of the page for MyStrands be activated
Hello,

I've made extensive revisions to the page for MyStrands, modeled loosely after last.fm's page, which is a company in the same space. I did this because I was having trouble using appropriate language that was not too marketing-oriented. I've attempted to state the facts as MyStrands exists. Please let me know if there's any more work that needs to be done for this page. It currently lives here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Darkbass98/MyStrands

Thanks, Dan

--Darkbass98 23:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * At a glance it looks quite improved, so I've moved it back to the article namespace: MyStrands. --W.marsh 00:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Conditioned Diphase
I was searching for information on Conditioned Diphase Modulation (CDI) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Conditioned_Diphase and noticed your name as the page deleter. I was wondering if there was a specific reason for this. The website listed on the deletion as "https://www.atis.org/tg2k/_conditioned_diphase_modulation.html" was a close definition, but to expand on that you could refer to the wikipedia definition of Differential Manchester Encoding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_Manchester_encoding) which is the parent encoding scheme for CDi. In my own textbooks, the keywords "Differential Manchester Encoding" are listed as "also known as CDI". CDI however introduces "signal conditioning" to the modulation method as stated on the atis.org website. In most cases, coaxial cable is used with CDI to extend circuits for greater distances than NRZ which may require more expensive and complex modems and repeaters.

Links to signal conditioning and Differential Manchester Encoding exist on the wikipedia site. I would also link to "line coding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_coding)" and "modulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulation)". There's not alot of information concerning CDI specifically on any website, so having even references to allow people to figure it out would help someone more than not having anything at all.

Thanks,

Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial277 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You can recreate the article, but just don't copy and paste the text in... I suggest also including a reference or two and a Category to make sure people can find the article. --W.marsh 19:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wp:drv
Hi W.Marsh. Please see my comments there. I have agreed to work with the editor to improve the article in user space and then restore. Are you happy to speedy close the DRV in light of this ? Pedro : Chat  15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I think it stands as an article, I'd prefer it be restored first... but if you're committed to moving it back to the article space, go ahead and close the DRV if you like. --W.marsh 15:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ernest Emerson
An admin from Emerson's home state User:Fang_Aili removed the RfD contrary so far as I can tell Wp policies. Would you be prepared to restore it? She says I can't Albatross2147 13:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, FAs have long been protected against being listed for deletion on the day they're on the main page. You'll find several cases where such nominations were closed early, but not where they were allowed to stay up. It's probably not written down anywhere, but this is one of those "unwritten rules" that is going to be nearly impossible to break at this point in time. So I can't really re-open the AFD... sorry. The place you might want to take this (tomorrow) is WP:FARC, to remove FA status. It looks like no one in the FAC was concerned with much more than copy editing, following the manual of style, and tagging fair use images. The process by which pages are chosen to appear on the main page can seem very broken at times... this particular article is really the poster case for what's wrong, unfortunately. --W.marsh 13:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of WikiProject Endorsements
WikiProject Endorsements, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Endorsements& and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of WikiProject Endorsements during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Navou banter 12:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * apologies for the template message, it was automated. I wanted to tell you personally.  Navou banter 12:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007


Automatically delivered by COBot 03:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Blaze Records
I noticed you denied to speedy the above article. I did some further checking and thought you may want to reconsider with the following info:

Blaze Records was a subsidiary of Prodigal Records per this. The article claims it was a subsidiary of Atco Records. The Atco article doesn't mention either. I can't determine which is correct. A Google hit search for "Blaze Records" and Atco yields 327 results, with the majority being lists of hundreds of record companies which both of these are on. Prodigal was purchased by Motown in 1974 per Motown, Prodigal was dissolved in 1978. A search for "Blaze Records" and Motown only yields 250 results, with a majority are just lists of record companies. Since we are not sure which label Blaze was with I don't think there is notability here. I also don't believe that a record label is notable merely because it existed at some point in time or was owned by a larger company. There is nothing special or unique about this defunct company, whoever it may be connected with, and I would urge you to reconsider. KnightLago 00:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there very well may not be notability, but a redirect could be more suited than deleting the article entirely. At any rate, speedy deletion is for obvious, uncontestable cases... nothing more. It's not for every case where something isn't notable after careful reflection... such cases are best handled at WP:AFD. --W.marsh 00:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice
An editor has asked for a deletion review of AsianAve. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Crossmr 06:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Real Life (Joan As Police Woman album)
Hi. IMO, this is a clear-cut A1 speedy for lack of context and is a borderline A3 for nearly rephrasing the title. It isn't even a plausible redirect. Just my two cents, but anyone who might stumble on this nanostub already knows what the album is and what it's about. Thanks. PMDrive1061 06:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's short... but both A1 and A3 specifically distinguish how a short article can provide enough context to be meaningful, and this article does it. I don't see how getting rid of this article benefits the project... having even a substub encourages expansion more than a redlink does. --W.marsh 13:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sloth
Why'd you delete sloth sydrome? H0w do i make it so it can stay on here?
 * Provide some published sources, showing this is a real syndrome? If it's just something you or your friends made up, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia --W.marsh 16:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

speedy declined on Kane Beatz
Hi. You declined to speedy Kane Beatz as nn because of "claims of importance (produced albums for notable artists)". But there's no evidence in the article that these artists are notable - the only references are to YouTube. andy 18:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Presumably Trick Daddy and Chamillionaire are notable... you can nominate them for deletion but it seems unlikely to succeed, if you look at those articles. --W.marsh 18:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume they are notable but the Kane Beatz article didn't link to those WP articles, only to some YouTube stuff which certainly doesn't count as an assertion of notability. The point is that there was no assertion in the article, which is what the speedy policy very clearly requires - not that a subject is notable to those readers who happen to know all about it. The assertion must be made. As a naive reader of the article I still can't see anything that tells me this person is worthy of an encyclopedia article. andy 21:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * CSD doesn't say anything about the number of internal links required... just that the assertion is there. We wouldn't delete an article that said "Elaine Chao is Secretary of Labor under George W. Bush" just because it didn't link the two important terms... it would be a reason to improve the article, not delete it on an empty technicality. --W.marsh 21:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Mechadoll
why was the article deleted? reference www.realdoll.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangbang360 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It contained no claims about why the company/product was notable, such as awards, coverage in published articles or books, etc. --W.marsh 00:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Holy fuck - what hole do you live in Marsh? Do you ever leave the house?  Or actually read anything other than Wikipedia?  Realdoll, et. al. have been referenced in probably hundreds of magazine and newspaper articles over the years, and if that doesn't make them notable, I don't know what does.  Why don't you try typing it into Google and watching a zillion results being returned give you an idea?  Just because you personally haven't heard of it doesn't mean that, well, even my Mom has, and even my small home town newspaper has run an AP article about them.  There's no need for claims any more than there would be for a reference to a band like The Who - finding someone who's never heard of RealDoll would been very difficult. WinkJunior 06:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But is realdoll the same thing as mechadoll? At any rate, if it's so well known, that should make it all the easier to find references. Although I must beg to differ... the more someone gets out of their house, the less expansive their knowledge of sex dolls is probably going to be... --W.marsh 13:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletetion
Hi thanks for that. My bad, I should have checked. It was edited by a user with the same name as the article so I thought he had just created it for himself. Doyley Talk 14:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for correcting my math-impaired edit to National Sanctity of Human Life Day! Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

AsianAve DRV
An editor has asked for a deletion review of AsianAve. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee   t / c  22:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Drone Download Project
The Drone Download Project is NOT a "corporation" or "company" but an on-going series of downloadable net releases that include a number of very well-known ambient artists having released tracks in the series, some of which have Wikipedia pages. Where you got any idea that the DDP was a company rather than a series of music releases, like the Pebbles compilations or other long-running music compilation projects is beyond me. Maybe you should spend a little less time trying to edit/delete so many pages and a little more time actually reading them closely enough to understand them? Just a suggestion. Cheers, Wink WinkJunior 06:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the article didn't seem to mention that any notable artists were involved. Ultimately, there are going to be reliable third-party sources that can be cited about this project, to establish its notability. Do those exist? --W.marsh 13:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment
Because of concerns over how I acted in semi-protecting the William Shakespeare article, I have opened a discussion on my use of my admin powers at User_talk:Alabamaboy. Based on how the comments go, I am prepared to give up my admin powers or accept other sanctions. I hope you will comment since you already voiced your opinion at ANI.--Alabamaboy 01:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2007 October 11
I have withdrawn the "Belldandy" nomination per your comment. -- Cat chi? 15:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? There's no such notice!
You wrote:


 * Well, the interface has improved a lot... if a user goes to a deleted page, they should be a very prominent notice that the page ahs been deleted, and why. Pretty hard to miss.

There should be, but there's not. First I searched for planning statistical research not by clicking on the link but by entering it in the search box, and all I'm told is that there's no such article and I can create it. Then I click on the red link to edit it, and when I'm logged in, as an administrator, I see the words "view or restore 28 deleted edits", but when I log out and try again, of course I don't see that. And non-admins don't see it even when they're logged in. What makes you think any such "hard-to-miss" notice exists? Michael Hardy 19:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Non-admins shouldn't see the "view or restore 28 edits", but if you'll notice there's a box right above hte edit box that says "Notice: You are re-creating a page that was deleted." and then gives the reason. It should appear for anons, but doesn't currently... presumably since htey can't create pages. This could probably be fixed by someone familiar with Mediawiki. --W.marsh 22:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletions
You have an agenda. You've declined several speedy deletions in the course of the past hour. Read the copy before blind editing and knock it the fuck off. --69.177.176.251 02:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also deleted a ton of pages, if you check my logs over that same period... I know what blatant advertising is, and that wasn't it. --W.marsh 02:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Haxor Radio
I have no vested interest, but I voted keep with I notice one other unsigned person for that article. I also observe 2 against, and no real edge in reasoning one way or the other. I feel this article should be restored, and the result as no consensus, or it should be relisted to generate more debate. Deleting off a 2-2 vote with mere sentences each way seems to be against the whole spirit of consensus building.JJJ999 10:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC) I don't even have the article anymore, I can't even look it over and think what could be done. I think it could be improved, and I would like to request it be relisted. Someone more knowledgeable than me may have some opinions on it for eg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, ideally all debates would get 10 or so well-reasoned and researched comments... but there's just not that level of participation in most AFDs, and relisting everything annoys some people who thinks it bogs down AFD. At any rate, the main reason I closed this AFD as a delete was the lack of sources in the article or AFD. Ultimately, if they don't exist, there really can't be an article. If you can show some reliable information about the subject has been published, so that the article could be more than just a guest list, which is pretty much not allowed under WP:NOT, then I will undelete outright. If you think relisting might help find them, I'll probably relist. Let me know. --W.marsh 13:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted --W.marsh 14:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Great work...
in deleting my 's :D Phgao 14:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there's a bot to do these now, but since they were in CAT:CSD I just got took care of them. It looked like you were being pretty careful about it. --W.marsh 14:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Page move question
Hello, perhaps you can help me. I would like to move the article Vaudeville (American) back to Vaudeville, which currently redirects to the former article. It seems needless for vaudeville to redirect, given that there is no other article which uses only the word vaudeville in its title, and there is a dab page for anyone who might be looking for something close but not quite the same. Furthermore, there have been objections raised that the current vaudeville article concentrates too much on the American form. So, without further ado, how do I move Vaudeville (American) back to its proper title? Am I making this more complex than it needs to be? Your time and assistance are appreciated. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  21:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It requires an admin to do this sort of move, since Vaudeville has to be deleted first. I'll go ahead and do the move... if there's an objection let me know. --W.marsh 21:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I proposed the move more than two weeks ago on the Vaudeville (American) talk page, and received no response. So, if there are objections, they've not been voiced.  Thanks for your assistance. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  21:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Surreal Scoop - deleted
Hi, You marked my recent article "Surreal Scoop" for deletion as apparently it does not justify itself?

It is an article continuing the News satire documentation. The site is in the style of the The Onion,Framley Examiner, Lush For Life, Broken Newz mode as is the article. The News satire itself is biased towards US news satire and since this brand of humour is prolific and the British persepctive is as important as any other i think the article is valid and expands the documentation of the genre.

Why speedy deletion? Which has now deleted it and thus requires re-writing, rather than proposed for deletion?

Cheers, Ei2g —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ei2g (talk • contribs) 08:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I saw no evidence of coverage of Surreal Scoop by third party sources. For example, while over 1,000 articles have been written about The Onion, a similar search for "Surreal Scoop" yields no results . Ultimately, inclusion on Wikipedia is based on the existence of these sources (see WP:N). If you can show some exist, then I will undelete the article. --W.marsh 13:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Your move
Hi. You did this. I had Warhawk (which is only a disambig page) tagged for speedy to make way for a new page that will be titled Warhawk. So the disambiguation page was re-created at Warhawk (disambiguation). I am not sure why you made that move, as Warhawk needs to be deleted and Warhawk (disambiguation) is sufficient. - Rjd0060 03:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, per disambig guidelines, I'm pretty sure Warhawk should be a dab page unless the page you're planning to create is either the original Warhawk or much better known than the other entries called "Warhawk". Otherwise it should just be another entry on the Warhawk dab page. Hopefully that makes sense. If you want me to undo the move, I will. --W.marsh 03:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, thats ok. I am not actually the one who is making the new page.  I will just inform that user as to what is going on.  Thanks. -Rjd0060 03:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I don't know. If you can take a look at Articles for deletion/Warhawk, and do (or not) whatever you think is best. - Rjd0060 03:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you can just create your page at Warhawk (whatever) at your leisure... once it's actually created, propose the change on Talk:Warhawk, and if there's no objection, any admin should be able to make the move. --W.marsh 03:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not going to do it. I informed User talk:Playstationdude of all this.  It is his "thing" and I was just trying to help.  Thanks for ... er... yeah.  Thanks - Rjd0060 04:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD Backlog
Congrats on clearing the AfD backlog. Lots of hard work. It's always interesting to see what the last few AfDs are and seeing who has the cahona's (or time) to close 'em. -- Jreferee    t / c  22:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks... nice work on your part too. I hadn't closed AFDs much for a few months, just started again because of the backlog... I'm sure I'll get burnt out and move on to some other task eventually, it's how I stay sane around here. --W.marsh 22:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there's three choice ones remaining for October 8th. : ) -- Jreferee    t / c  23:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've glanced at them all... meh. Not as easy as yesterday's. I'll give 10/8 and 10/9 a try though. --W.marsh 23:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ageing workers
I saw that you speedily deleted the article which was the subiect of the discussion referenced above, no doubt because it came to light there that it was a copyvio. The article had a "live" AfD discussion that still appeared on the long list. I closed it, but just as a note, it is helpful to add the (explanation goes here) -~ and  tags to the discussion, to show that it is over. Verbum sapienti satis. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have done that if I'd realized there was an AFD going... guess I'm still not used to the new template message styles. Thanks for the reminder. --W.marsh 14:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion edit summary
Hi. You just deleted the Tim Ritter article, which I tagged as an attack page, but you left the attacks in your edit summary by accident. Can that be deleted or oversighted because of BLP concerns?

Thanks.

Seraphim Whipp 16:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have oversight, sorry, see Requests for oversight --W.marsh 16:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll post to the admins noticeboard instead though, as the oversight process is rather slow. Seraphim  Whipp 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Rhianna
Thank you for the confirmation - very much appreciated. I have just restored the article. Bobo. 03:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well you really need to wait for an admin to actually undo the deletion... be patient and an uninvolved one should see the DRV before too long. --W.marsh 03:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Pooley green
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Pooley green, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Pooley green is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Pooley green, 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. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 09:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 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 10:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Gendercator deletion?
Why was the wikipedia entry for Gendercator deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.70.232 (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was just a repost of a deleted article... a very clumsy one at that. That's not the proper way to undo a deletion. To undo a deletion properly, you need to talk to the admin who deleted it, or make a request at WP:DRV --W.marsh 18:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dammit, Janet!
Hi W.marsh. You made Dammit, Janet! a redirect. I recreated the article with reliable source material and restored Dammit, Janet!. If you take exception to my recreating the article, please let me know. Thanks. -- Jreferee    t / c  21:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey! Thanks for the barnstar. I almost never receive them (it's been a very long time), so it worked out great! San Angeles is another article I recently rescued. -- Jreferee    t / c  21:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)