User talk:Retired username/Archive18

Muniguda
I have re-worked the article to more conform to the wiki way... If you have the time to review it as compaired to the original. If you have any suggestions feel free to advise me. Thanks --Pmedema (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like a fine stub now, nice work. --W.marsh 21:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank-you :) Learning and doing.... --Pmedema (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Missing headline
Hi Administrator Marsh, regarding: 17:29, 30 November 2007 W.marsh (Talk | contribs) deleted "Newbie Brad" ‎ (content was: 'db-rediruser #REDIRECT User:Newbie Brad' (and the only contributor was 'Chromaticity')) I hope you'll reconsider. The re-submission I made shows recent international performance activity in the entry, which might indicate the submission is appropriate subject matter for WIKI. Best, Brad Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbie Brad (talk • contribs)
 * The person who actually did this move was --W.marsh 18:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Heads up
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 23:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you much for the notice... I probably would have missed the thread otherwise. --W.marsh 23:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Graduated Random Presidential Primary System
It's very likely that you have put the cart before the horse. The Wikipedia article was written in early 2004. FairVote adopted the idea and renamed it the American Plan more than a year later. Thus, any resemblance between material in the Wikipedia article and information on the FairVote website is may well be due to FairVote getting its material in part from the Wikipedia article (it is supposed to be a free source of information). Concerns over copyright infringement seem unfounded. You might contact the original author of the Graduated Random Presidential Primary System, a.k.a American Plan, and ask him if he wants the article deleted. He may not be aware that its been deleted.
 * It doesn't work that way, though. We need the permission to use copyrighted material first, we don't just use it until the owner complains. You can send him the above link I showed you on donating copyrighted material. --W.marsh 01:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Graduated Random Presidential Primary System
Forgive me, but we seem to be having a misunderstanding. You claim that the reason for deleting this page was that it violated FairVote's copyright. This is obviously untrue given that the Wikipedia article existed first. It was in the public domain for a year, then FairVote may have used it. What is the problem?
 * So you're saying that the content did not originate from this site, that FairVote copied from Wikipedia without attribution, and that the original Wikipedia article was written by our editors and not copied from anywhere? My research seems to be confirming this, so I will probably undelete if you agree my summary is correct. --W.marsh 01:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Helion-Prime deleted
Hello W.marsh. Article about our compnay was nominated after I added some addtional content to it. When I notified it I rewrited it and made special post in talk page. But recently you do deleted article anaway. I asked about description [why], I asked what can I do to meet wiki requirements?

tell me somthing my friend .. thank you, Anna Anna.kolesnik 17:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I'll think about it but you keep saying "our company". Does it seem that surprising that people think someone writing about their own company comes off as advertising? --W.marsh 17:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I said "our company". I guess that you noticed that almost all aritcles about companies created by employee of that companies. We want to have our article about our company too. But still what can I do to restore our page? What should I rewrite on it accordingly to your understanding of wiki philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna.kolesnik (talk • contribs) 07:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections
Please see my comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Deskana. Thank you. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of "Proportional approval voting," please reconsider
As I had noticed other suspicious behavior on the part of the editor who proposed this deletion, I looked at Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard. This editor was a blatant sock. The very first action, the same day as registering, he proposed an AfD for Schentrup Method. Clay Shentrup -- who for some reason, when he proposed this method half as a joke, mispelled his name that way -- is a prominent and, shall we say, outspoken proponent of Range and Approval Voting. Makes lots of enemies. The article deserved deletion, that's not my point. My point is that Yellowbeard was an experienced editor with an axe to grind, who dives into hacking with it immediately.. He then proceeded to AfD a whole series of election methods, and he was successful for a time. Many of these articles were about relatively weakly-notable methods, and, most importantly, it appears that nobody was watching the articles, apparently. He then started to run into opposition, and has stopped editing, it appears, more than a month ago. He may be back under another name, a different matter.

My request here is that Proportional approval voting be brought back, even if it is immediately considered again for deletion. The evidence presented in the AfD was quite incomplete. While there are no peer-reviewed publications that I've seen, so far -- I have only researched this shallowly -- PAV has widely been discussed, and a number of papers have been written and made available by academics on it. It is not merely the Original Research of one person, it is a known method seeing relatively wide discussion. One of the problems we face with election methods articles in general is that much serious discussion of such methods now takes place on mailing lists, first, and later with self-published articles, long before articles appear in the few peer-reviewed journals that might possibly consider publishing them. Existing peer-reviewed journals, for the most part, and with a few exceptions, are mostly interested, it seems, in short-term, i.e., immediate political relevance, so even well-known methods are often not yet published in sources meeting WP:RS. (There is a journal which does publish some new theoretical work, Voting Matters, but it specializes in topics relevant to Single transferable vote or similar methods.)

In this state of affairs, an article on a *notable* method must be careful about stating facts that cannot be verified by an RS; essentially, those facts, if stated as such, must be verifiable by any reader. All this would come out, I'm sure, in an AfD that had participation by more Voting systems editors. I did not recognize one name in the AfD. Except for Yellowbeard. My opinion is that if a subject is notable, it deserves an article, whether the subject was in some way the product of "Original research" or not. To be notable, it must be discussed widely, at least in its field. The proper standard to apply for keeping or deleting the article was notability, not WP:OR. One clue as to the notability of this article was the many links which had to be removed when it was deleted. Articles on notable subjects where there are few or no Reliable Sources can still state attributed facts about discussion and claims about it that can be verified by anyone.

Thanks for your consideration and efforts. --Abd 20:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 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. Ralbot 10:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD of 'newsy' articles
Hiya, I just read your note advicing against AfD on whatshernames talkpage (with the dispearing porn thing). I was just wondering what standard pratice is in situations like these, where there are some current developements, but there is no clear indication of notability yet. I always thought that was more something for wikinews, and could be taken over to wikipedia when a permanent notability had been established. Could you give some guidance on that? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried to describe the speculative nature of trying to decide either way at this juncture. I think standard practice is kind of what I described... the "just let people create an article now and we'll delete it later if it makes sense then" argument has been endorsed at DRV (with some of the London terrorism articles). It would be problematic to actually add this practice to BLP policy... I don't think it gives any guidance yet. While Wikinews is theoretically better, Wikipedia just has so many more editors... our ability to generate quite good articles on current event-ish stories is pretty well documented. I hope that was helpful... the bottom line is there's no definitive way of handling these cases. But AFDs this early are so messy that I don't think many people really advise them. --W.marsh 23:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes sense I guess. Regardless of the 'messyness' of the AfD's, getting new editors articles deleted quickly is fairly bity too, I see a point there aswell, though that shouldn't govern inclusion criteria. I guess what will happen though, is that it will become one of the many, many, forgotten articles, which I don't really object to anyway. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said, I don't think you'll ever see "don't AFD current event articles" codified into policy... not doing so is something of an unspoken agreement to avoid drama. It doesn't really hurt to wait a few months, if the information being added now is verifiable. I think these things do find their way to AFD sooner or later... I wouldn't worry too much about Wikipedia being overwhelmed by stale stories of forgotten scandals of yesteryear. --W.marsh 23:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is Image:Emily-israel-victoria.jpg This image appropriate though, with the man in it? (BLP thingies? )Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Offhand, I'd say no... the guy has not been convicted or even accused of anything as far as I know and yet there's his image clearly implying something. This is a bit of a policy gray area though. Maybe discuss on the talk page. --W.marsh 00:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I will... tomorrow. To bed for me now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And there I was thinking I'm sure there won't be too much drama...Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's what I said would happen 5 days ago... it's too bad quasi-wheel warring admins wasting a lot of people's time by forcing the AFD to run when the conclusion was obvious. --W.marsh 02:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Subject/headline
(sometimes I can't think of a good header, so you get the generic one)

Hey, Marsh - if I can make an unsolicited suggestion as a third party... you may want to step away from the Sander-related stuff for a little bit. There's some unpleasant things coming from all sides on the issue, and I think it'd reflect well on the whole thing if you, as an admin, were to step back for a little bit to get some air and allow things to settle into the proper perspective. Might set the lead to help things cool off some. If anything changes, the edit logs will have everything saved - but when I see a good admin dropping a few tense comments (i.e., ), whether they're right or wrong, it may be time for a break.

Just a friendly suggestion, you're welcome to ignore it if you'd like. Let me know if I can help. Tijuana Brass 01:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed you didn't leave a comment like this to the guy who called me abusive and a POV pusher, or to the other guy who stated his goal of gaming 3RR to edit war on the article in question.. both of which violate various policies, something you haven't accused me of. So why do I need to step away while people who are making personal attacks or edit warring can keep on trucking? Well I guess I know the answer... the other two guys agree with your POV on the article. --W.marsh 01:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not at all. I don't have much of an opinion on the article itself... I voted delete at the AfD, but it's no skin off my back if the consensus goes the other way. I picked you because you're an admin that I've seen around for some time now, and I'm confident in your ability to approach the issue in a cool manner. Me picking you is out of trust, not finger-pointing. Don't read something negative into me not posting to their talk pages - I'm not saying that I agree with any of the accusations made by either side. It's just a hot situation that I'd like to see cooled down some, and I think you could help make that happen.


 * If you'd like me to offer the same suggestion to other users, let me know (sooner rather than later, though, as I plan to sign off for a while in a few minutes). Tijuana Brass 01:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah, don't bother with similar messages to them. Hopefully you see my point though, that you have targeted only the guy who disagreed with you about the article, yet I wasn't edit warring or making attacks. Mikkalai is an admin too as far as I know. --W.marsh 01:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I get where you're coming from - I didn't intend to imply an accusation, so I apologize if it came off as me pointing the finger at you. Just trying to encourage cool heads.
 * Let me know if I can help in some other way in the future. Tijuana Brass 01:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I reply to people at AFD and make strong arguments... sometimes people who are unfamiliar with deletion debates (I don't know if you are) seem surprised and mistake it for hostility... that's really not the case. I've nominated people for adminship who I've disagreed with strongly with at AFD. I don't personally think I've ever been a "hot head" in an AFD, or if I have it wasn't this one in question. I appreciate the concern... but sometimes a strong argument is just a strong argument, it's not a sign that someone is too emotional. --W.marsh 03:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Stuartross1/ross
I came across this and was wondering if there was a plan for it? I guess it's left over from Articles for deletion/Stuart R. Ross back in Feb 2007 but I'm a little unclear on the "userfy" part of this action. The AfD notice still in the article brings it up on this list: User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedAfD. I'm tracking down the older listings to see if they need to be cleared out. Should I just ignore it? Pigman ☿ 21:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I userfy any article (other than copyvios/libel) if someone wants to work on adding references, so that seems to have been the case here. I try to remember to remove the AFD and other templates that don't belong in userspace. THe user seems to have been inactive since March... I'll delete the page. --W.marsh 21:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I figured 8 months with no work to speak of was long enough. Pigman ☿ 02:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Helion-Prime article restore
Good afternoon W.marsh.

I want ask you to restore our page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helion-prime ; and provide me with view on you wiki philosophy how I should redising it to meet your criteria of wiki.

thank you, Anna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna.kolesnik (talk • contribs) 09:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I assure you most articles about notable companies aren't written by those companies. At any rate, I have restored a copy in your userspace, at User:Anna.kolesnik/Helion-prime. You can move it back to being an article after you add independent sources about your company (books, magazines, newspaper articles, etc.) If these don't exist, it seems your company doesn't meet the inclusion guideline here, WP:CORP --W.marsh 15:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * thank you for detailed message. I will try to add independent sources.

194.158.198.156 (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

William H. Neukom
Hi, Please add more info to the instant article so that it will not have to read like a resume. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the tag so people interested in this topic can do the style editting needed. I don't know anything about Neukom. --W.marsh 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sean Morrison
I would like to know why this page was deleted and/or what I could do that would make it acceptable to repost the page without fear of deletion. For instance, Sean Morrison has won the following awards, and is notable for a number of other reasons. Also, I would like access to the text of the deleted page.

These awards include, according to the Detroit News, "The Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers in 2003, Wired Magazine's Rave Award for Science in 2003 and Technology Review magazine's list of 100 innovators in 2002. Morrison earned the prestigious title of investigator from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in 2000. He became one of more than 300 scientists at research institutes around the county chosen because of his potential to make significant contributions to science" http://detnews.com/specialreports/2006/michiganians/morrison.htmAptanalogy (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article I deleted was probably about a different Sean Morrison... it just said "He grew up from the age of 5 in the bay area in Northern California. Sean currently works as an I.T. guy at a small startup company and is going to school". You will just need to start over to write about the Sean Morrison you mention. --W.marsh 19:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK...but did you read the article that I posted before it was deleted? I did write about (the notable) Sean Morrison, when it was deleted immediately. Was it someone else who deleted the article that I wrote? Do you have the text of the deleted article?Aptanalogy (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You do not appear to have ever editted the deleted page, maybe you did under a different account/IP? Zoe deleted a version on 17 August 2006 that was also about a student and had no credible claim of importance. Another version deleted by bucketsofg was short and only claimed the subject was "an investigator of stem cell research", which is not a credible claim of importance. I've looked at every revision and don't see anything that asserts importance. --W.marsh 19:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Rigging Extempore Gear
Referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Active#Rigging_extempore_gear I want to object to the deletion of this article because it wasn't a how to. It was never described how someone rigs a gyn f.i.. It did describe how a gyn is rigged. See the difference? By the way I somehow cannot edit the site on the above mentioned link. Well I can but it doesn't show me any of the things you said in the above mentioned link. And if you truly believe it to be a how-to why don't you modify it? Janno (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.32.73 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Maxwell Upson
Being on the board of trustees for 35 years is a notable accomplishment? Is it simply the length of time he was on it or the mere presence on the board? will381796 (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A bit of both, also the fact that it was a quite notable board, or so the article indicated. This is not a guarantee the article would be kept at AFD, it's just a reasonable claim of importance, enough to satisfy WP:CSD... at least in my opinion. --W.marsh 04:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood. Thanks. will381796 (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

thank you
Moïse Katumbi Chapwe Thank you for removing the speedy delete tag from this article around 25 November 2007. This man is a provincial governor in the Congo. I have improved the article and added references. it is not finished and has a long way to go, but it's now better. This is the state that I found the article ‎http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mo%C3%AFse_Katumbi_Chapwe&diff=176227297&oldid=175348272 (See bottom part of article, scroll down!)

Thank you for giving someone a chance to fix this! Congolese (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Domino's
You failed to see that the article were tagged in October as having an Trivia tag? And the un-encyclopedic tag put up in November? That stuff should have been converted to prose and incorporated into the main body. If the contributors failed to do this in the three months that these tags were there, it is not my fault.

You are an admin and you should know better to violate the three reverts rule.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC))
 * The "three months" thing is not in the trivia guideline, in fact the guideline specifically says not to remove trivia sections but to edit them... you were just removing it. What you were doing was section blanking... 3RR doesn't apply to dealing with blanking. --W.marsh 15:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs WikiNews
I thought your comment on the AfD for the Colorado Springs church shooting article was smashing! Have you considered developing it into an essay? Or perhaps there already is one? At any rate, it was great and I've bookmarked it for future reference. Anchoress (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks. I doubt there's an essay on the subject... I was just sick of deletionists who don't understand there's a difference between journalistic and encyclopedic writing (possibly because they don't do either), and want to shuffle everything off to Wikinews just to sweep it under the rug. --W.marsh 14:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey W.marsh, I just wanted to echo User:Anchoress's comments above. I was quite impressed with your contrast of encyclopedic and journalistic functions.  If you are interested in writing an essay on this topic, I would be more than happy to help you.  Just write me back on my talk page if you want to go forward with this idea. --Eastlaw (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * An addendum to my previous comment: There is already one essay on this topic, News articles.  Perhaps we should write a response to this essay based upon your earlier comments?  Again, let me know on my talk page if you have time. --Eastlaw (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a try... thanks for the encouragement. I'll try to post to both of your talk pages if I generate anything. --W.marsh 23:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * @ Both of you: Cool and I would love to participate in writing/editing such an essay as well. If (either of) you get one started I'll be there! Anchoress (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

quit
--Zax1993 (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)i am making some thing on my dog and the right pic did not go on

Signpost updated for December 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. Ralbot (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You and RFPP
Mitchell Report (baseball)

REQUEST: Semi-protection. To start with, for the next 24 hours. The report is coming out tommorrow and already there has been "rumors" posted that are in gross violation of WP:LIBEL. And once the report will come out, the "party" will really start. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected. I don't agree with preemptive protection, but here it's really already started, and the material being added is clearly problematic in terms of BLP. Going with only 24 hours for now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you justify undoing the protect? -- \/\/slack (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, saw your post on the talk page. -- \/\/slack (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

mitchell report
Hi.

If you look at the contributory history of Mitchell Report (baseball) you will notice that all the contribs from IP's are unsourced names/vandalism. Best, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hiya! Are you from Falmouth?
I'm from Falmouth, KY, I saw you posted a picture of downtown on there. Do you live there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.33.248 (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, I was just driving through. I try to take a downtown picture of towns when I'm there to illustrate the Wikipedia article. --W.marsh 15:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN
Hello, this is a friendly notice that Suspected sock puppets/TTN is up for deletion. I saw you were involved with the deletion review, so I thought I should let you know. Thanks! Taric25 (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Kragthorpe rumors from November
Hi! Didn't do any more about the Kragthorpe article, but I originally edited out the rumors because I felt that speculation of his leaving fell more into the following:

"Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article."

As he did not leave, I'm still not sure that the oh-so-brief speculation over his leaving merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. Will the SMU speculation still be important next year? Is it important even now, a month later?

Also, I thought the "dismal" season (which is POV, anyway - it was a wonderful season for Wildcat fans ;P) was reflected in his coaching record. Merry Christmas! Portia1780 (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There needs to be something about the local reaction to his first season... more than just showing people the win/loss record and letting them draw a conclusion. I just thought the existing paragraph needing style editing rather than purging. --W.marsh 20:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Graduated Random Presidential Primary System
Hey, I just posted a new article for Graduated Random Presidential Primary System. I saw that you had deleted the earlier one as a possible copyright violation against fairvote.org. I wanted to ask if you'd check out my version and determine if it has the same problem. I hadn't read the deleted version, so I don't know how it was phrased.

If it is still problematic, can you please advise me on how to improve it? I want to make sure there is an article on this on wikipedia in some form. Thanks.

SenorCrunchy (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

An image I upoaded does not satisfy WP:FUC
, which I have just uploaded, violates our fair-use policy. But what about the image violates policy? Maser ( Talk! ) 01:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that "policy" is a bit of a joke but I think the particular hoop you haven't jumped through here is providing a fair use rationale for each specific article you want to use the image on. --W.marsh 01:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Marsh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Hamid_%28Manipuri_Poet%29 is an article which I have been somewhat constantly monitoring because of the sole fact that it remains alive when it shouldn't be.

The original author appears to have sockpuppet accounts using other IP addresses or accounts, namely Aeja1370. When the article first appeared, it was NOT under Aeja1370; when the article disappeared, a new version of the same article reappeared under the alias of the above mentioned. In addition, a quick Google search reveals that there is no such person as Abdul Hamid with those qualifications. If a person is that "dearer to the literary world", as the author claims, shouldn't he be at the very least recognized within their home country? Yet there is absolutely no reference to the so-called writer except an article that leads you to that Wikipedia article. In the past, this user, may be accidently, vandalized the disambiguation page which meant that searching Abdul Hamid would've led straight to his own article rather than the other Abdul Hamid articles in Wikipedia.

For all those reasons, I strongly believe that this user and the rest of his other sock puppet accounts are from the same person or group. I have added a speedy deletion tag for spamming as this act of this author has been carried over many times before so I know that what he or she is doing is intentional, not out of good faith.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and I hope that this note gets through your vast amount of other notes that you receive from your page.

AWDRacer (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess it should go to WP:AFD, that will help generate consensus on a more definitive decision about what to do here. --W.marsh 01:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The War Between the Classes
Just wanted to get your opinion on the best way to approach what is going on on this page. Looks like a group of school kids trying to use Wikipedia for a school project. Not sure if it would be best to leave it alone or to work to fix the issues, let me know what you think. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well you seem to be making the right edits. That they're doing a class project isn't an excuse for just doing whatever they want with a page. They should be blocked if they keep it up... I've added a hidden warning to this effect. I'm going to bed soon, though... you might ask for help on WP:ANI if problems persist. --W.marsh 05:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a Note
I notice that you deleted Wikiproject Endorsements. This Wikiproject is still shown as active on Wikiproject Wikipedia Maintenance page (resulting in a broken link on that page). Userafw (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 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 (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much
After years of trying, the diploma mill alumni finally have what they have wanted all along, a page at LBU that takes you to their worthless "university". Gastrich will be proud of you. Me, I'm not quite so completely delighted. I really don't like rewarding POV-pushing diploma mill spammers in this way, especially since it seems more than likely that the originator of the request for the dab page,, is a sockpuppet - if that user was genuinely new on 11 December then I'm a Dutchman. Wikipedia will now be leading the world in promoting the LBU = Louisiana Baptist "University" meme, saving them all kinds of work adding it to other user-editable sites. Yay Wikipedia. Please feel free to ignore this as an outburst of righteous anger over the cynical, persistent and ultimately, it seems, successful abuse of Wikipedia by the contemptible Gastrich vanispamcruftisement brigade. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think your aggressive and endless pursuit of these guys is why they come back so viciously. Trolls love that they get people to make an "outburst of righteous anger". Just ignore it, write our articles the way they're supposed to be (which in this case, constructing a dab page properly, rather than just doing it a certain way to spite a troll). This is how I treat people I run into and I never end up with the Gastrich types... sometimes it takes two to tango. --W.marsh 15:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they come back because they are on a mission. I am just pissed off that they have achieved their long-term goal to promote their cruddy diploma mill.  I'll get over it.  Guy (Help!) 16:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Kynoid
Hi, could you restore this to my user space? Thanks, Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 05:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, it's at User:Tlogmer/Kynoid --W.marsh 16:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

TableManners
There's an user named TableManners that is deleteing the Museums in Louisville category from any that are in Indiana. I am going to need assistance with this newbie that has already made self-righteous comments on my talk page about it.--Bedford (talk) 06:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just submitted an Rfc, and a comment that explains my view. The Rfc is at Should Museums in Indiana be listed in Museums in Kentucky? Please come look at the problem, one proposed solution, and offer others.  Thanks.  T able M anners U·T·C 07:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will comment tomorrow. Bed time now. --W.marsh 07:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Museums_in_Kentucky classifications too course
Please take a look at Template_talk:Museums_in_Kentucky. I am seeking input on the organization of this template. The classifications are a bit too course in my view. T able M anners U·T·C 17:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/E2
You're joking, right? He could just redirect Requests for adminship/HIS NEW USERNAME to the successful one...&mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 06:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He could... he could also have it oversighted as a privacy violation if I created that redirect. --W.marsh 06:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He could... but at the same time he could be open and upfront about it. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 06:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He'd be under no obligation to be upfront about it, many admins who change their usernames aren't clear about their past identities at all. --W.marsh 06:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, if I do rename, I will make sure that I post links to previous username logs, and the successful RfA. DIMO, let's not take it out on W.marsh, after all, everyone has their own opinion. &mdash; E  talk 07:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Good news on Category:Orphaned articles from June 2006
You created this backlog, you should get the good news that it is no longer needed - the last article in it is on AfD right now and has only delete votes. You created this backlog, it only seems right that you should get to delete it.--CastAStone//(talk) 03:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll keep an eye on it. I miss running the bot to make sure these categories picked up all new orphan articles quickly, but it was just too much work each week. --W.marsh 18:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 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 (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Keeley Dorsey
I have nominated Keeley Dorsey, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Keeley Dorsey&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Wizardman 01:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply
I replied at the Village Pump. Regards, Keilana talk(recall) 02:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Hurricane Creek mine disaster, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Technodrome
Why did you close this the way you did? I (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because there did not seem to be a consensus for any particular course of action. --W.marsh 03:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not? The two comments that supported keeping had no basis in policy and guideline, merely claims of in-universe importance. The comments that supported deletion or merging were based on notability, plot, original research and verifiability concerns. I (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merger is a keep decision though, and does have a basis in policy. AFD is articles for deletion, AFD isn't needed for a merge or redirect. --W.marsh 03:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Are you saying there wasn't consensus for redirection/merging? I (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There wasn't consensus for deletion, it was a deletion discussion so trying to judge consensus for other things is tough. In this case you could probably merge/redirect it and see if anyone objects. --W.marsh 04:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I intend to. Aside from that, are you saying that AfD discussions shouldn't result in anything other than keep, delete or no consensus? I (talk) 04:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No... there would just need to be a strong consensus for other alternatives. --W.marsh 04:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I redirected it as I said, but it was reverted. I have therefore listed it at DRV. I (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your pictures
I need more pictures for Portal:Louisville's Selected pictures. If you can send me what you think are your best pics, I'll include them. Thanks.--Bedford (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm I really don't take very good pictures, any I've uploaded are just placeholders until a competent photographer comes along. The one in Tyler Park is the only one I recall being particularly proud of. Feel free to use any I've uploaded, though... most are probably on commons (I have the same ID there) --W.marsh 16:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD Debate
Replied. Appreciate it if you wouldn't automatically assume mental deficiency or a bad faith vote on my part. Avruch talk 04:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You said there were not multiple reliable sources, when there were 3 cited in the article... so you invited it. --W.marsh 17:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I said it "didn't really meet WP:RS" which is, in my opinion, the case. I didn't invite an assumption that I'm stupid or ignorant of the policies in question. Avruch talk 17:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are 80+ reliable sources, why are you insisting there aren't reliable sources? I see articles about him by the Associated press, Kansas City Star, Tampa Tribune, etc. There's nothing in RS that says "It's an unreliable source if the person died within a few weeks of the article being written". So the idea that there aren't reliable sources here, when they obviously do exist, is why I said what I did. --W.marsh 17:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Joke on your user page
Hey, I love the BLP 2010 joke (as well as the Deletionistpedia one) on your userpage. Only thing is, I suspect you mean "compliant" rather than "complaint". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks... I actually decided to add a preview of an inline nag tag we might be seeing by that time, in lieu of fixing the typo (which might also be standard procedure by then). --W.marsh 18:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The highways dispute has reached Arbcom
Requests for arbitration/Highways 2 --NE2 00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion
Remeber this AFD? Well you said you would delete the page, so could you please do it? After all, this user is not a sockpuppet! All they did was fix a mistake on a talk page. 124.181.122.44 (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Soering v. United Kingdom
An editor has nominated Soering v. United Kingdom, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

what?
come on man, why did you delete the Total Trampoline Wrestling UK page, i mean, we are only 12, just having a laugh, and you come and spoil our fun! It was my little brothers birthday, he's only 4 !4! and he was beging me to show him. when it wasnt ther he cried and ran to his room. is that the pain you want to inflict? bastard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.74.72 (talk • contribs)

Excuse me, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to joke around or have fun. That's what website templates are for. People use Wiki for information, not to create false pages or insert untrue or dumb information. W.marsh was right in deleting what ever idiotic page you and your friends put up. Sorry if this sounds mean, but you, my friend, is who is at fault here. Broadway4life155 (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

janet reno
you've cited 'verifiability' in support of your removal of the tag. i'll cite it too "or likely to be challenged". that means that i do not have to give a rundown of reasons for tagging the article, as you've demanded in your edit summaries. i maintain that the article needs more citations. clearly, other editors do too - you'll note the fact tags already extant in the article. please stop removing the tag. thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 07:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's likely to be challenged... instead of requesting more decorations, why not just work on improving the article rather than adding a graffiti tag to it? Have you even read the article? Asking for more inline citations is a common thing people do without even reading the article... it's an easy nag to make... but it's pointless. --W.marsh 07:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * yes, i have read the article, thank you for your concern. thank you for noting that you don't see what's likely to be challenged, your opinion is noted. tagging articles that need better citations is - in my opinion, since we're chatting about opinions and not policy, it would seem - is a good thing. alternatively, i can pull all material from the article that's already fact tagged, as well as large number of assertions in it that i am unable to verify because it lacks any references to back them up. i estimate the article will be a short paragraph long. would that be an improvement you would accept? Anastrophe (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You could remove ones you think are incorrect... after making a reasonable check for references. The point of WP:V is accuracy, not decoration through superscript blue numbers. Anything else and you're removing accurate material for purely bureaucratic reasons... which is basically vandalism. So do you want to vandalize the article? I hope not. Just work on improving it, rather than trying to hold it hostage with ugly tags. --W.marsh 07:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * it seems your rationale for removing the tag is "i don't like it". the first defense against subtle vandalism is citations. for purposes of this discussion, i can make a small addition to the article, that would appear perfectly valid - but without a citation, there's no way to know. would you care to participate in this - that is, view the article without viewing the diff, after i make the edit? then try to guess what's not true? Anastrophe (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, do that... then I'll block you for vandalism. --W.marsh 07:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * you're an administrator, right? could you tell me where i might take this matter up? this entire matter appears to be an abuse of privilege.Anastrophe (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocking someone for vandalism is exactly what I'm allowed to do, it's hardly abuse. To this point that's been the only mention of admin privilege. There's nowhere to take this up since it's a non-issue. You can improve the article or not... your insistence on an ugly tag will only hurt the article, since as long as it's there, there's no way I will ever edit the article except to remove the tag. --W.marsh 07:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't like the overuse of tags either, but in all fairness to Anastrophe, it's not a clear-cut case of vandalism, per se. It's an editing dispute and a difference of opinion, and you probably shouldn't block editors with whom you're involved in an editing dispute.  Anastrophe is perfectly welcome to take such matters to WP:3O if he really feels more input is needed.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Intentionally inserting inaccurate information into a BLP is vandalism... --W.marsh 07:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh I see, you were trying to discourage him from making the WP:POINT-y edit he proposed. I misunderstood and thought you were trying to block him over the tag disagreement.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * excuse me, but you just threatened to block me for vandalism. over the thousands of edits i've made, i've never even been warned for vandalising, because i'm not a vandal. users are warned with escalations before being blocked. you however have threatened a block, period. that woudl be an abuse of your privilege - never mind that i asked you if you'd be willing to participate, which would preclude it being vandalism, if an administrator gave his consent, for purposes of a test. i should add that it is not just the threat of a block that i consider abuse of privilege. i guess i'll go look up where to bring up this matter myself. thanks for your time.Anastrophe (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(reindent)well this is just insane. i'm removing unsourced info from the article - info that's been fact tagged a half a year - and you're adding it back, claiming it's referenced in the sources. WHAT sources?? there are no sources for the anecdote and other information i removed. we now have an admin who is insisting on adding back unsourced info, that may well be completely fake for all we know, since there are no sources for it. this is progress in making wikipedia verifiable? holy crap. Anastrophe (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're removing stuff you apparently don't think is inaccurate... and some of the claims, like the one about women in her law school class, was from, which was listed as a source if you'd checked. If you think material is inaccurate, say so and remove it... right now you're just blanking stuff, which is essentially vandalism. --W.marsh 08:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * you are seriously misrepresenting things, and again, it's abuse of privilege. removing unsourced material is not, never has been, and never will be, vandalism. period. "unsourced material may be challenged and removed". i removed material fact-tagged since august. that is not vandalism. i resent your suggesting that it is, but that and $6.95 will by you a double mocha flappucocio. you are also misrepresenting the sources - what you list above - did not exist in the article before you added it. there was only a general link to the main usdoj.gov website, which only barely qualifies as a reference. i appreciate your intent, but you seem to have no appreciation for my intent, which is keeping WP honest - by keeping WP verifiable. i look forward to your citation for the long anecdote about her mother "digging the foundation with her own hands, and installing all of the wiring and plumbing.". if some random asshat - a year ago or whatever - had added "and appliances" to the end of the sentence, would you have known it was vandalism? of course not. because the whole story appears - at least to me, a casual reader (who isn't a vandal!) to be fiction. without a ref, who the fuck knows? Anastrophe (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While you were typing that, I have replaced all but one of the citation request tags in the article. One of us improved the article... --W.marsh 08:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * wait. you just vandalized the article. you 'blanked' a large chunk of it that had been fact-tagged since august. shall i report you? oh - you couldn't find a citation? wow. so that which you claimed i was a vandal for performing, you of course were "improving the article". man, this is really crap. so, if i were to add back that long anecdote, you'd probably block me for being a vandal. right? this is admin insanity. i'm a vandal if i remove fact tagged info, you're a hero if you remove fact tagged info. between this and reverting genuine vandals all fucking day long, i wonder why i bother. have a scrumptious day. Anastrophe (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Notice the explanation I gave for blanking that text... I found a citation but the content itself seemed unencyclopedic in character, as I explained. I think you're taking this the wrong way... if you really want to improve the article, you shouldn't be trying to jab at me for adding references to it. I think you're losing perspective here and getting emotional. --W.marsh 08:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * yes, i am emotional. humans get that way. you do realize that nearly the same text exists in the 'post political life' section, also fact tagged since august. who knows, maybe i was the one who fact tagged all this stuff, i honestly don't know, i can barely keep track of yesterday, let alone five months ago. however, i have not lost perspective on a fundamental issue here: you don't like the citation template on articles. 'do not like' has never gone over real well with me when it comes to working on WP. if you have a POLICY basis for removing the cite template, then have at it. but simply removing the tag by fiat - because you don't happen to like it - is utterly uncool. i have added thousands of citations to articles on wikipedia. i have removed thousands of unsourced bits of crap on wikipedia. i stand by my record as a non-vandal here, and a contributing member. yes, i do get emotional when an admin threatens me with a block when i suggest an 'experiment', then says i'm 'essentially a vandal'. i expect abuse from anonymous asshats adding crap to wikipedia. i don't expect it from an admin. but i guess that's my fault, for holding admins to a higher standard. oh, wait...Anastrophe (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no need to get emotional... especially over this. The article now has 13 in-text citations by the way. I guess my point is that you should be improving articles by actually working on them, as I have just done... throwing tags all over the place and blanking content you think is accurate, that's not very helpful. Some people get the idea it is, because there's a lot of misinformation floating around out there... but it's a gross misunderstanding of how to improve articles. --W.marsh 08:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * let me repeat: i stand by my record of contributions to wikipedia. you don't like the cite template. i do. i constantly add references to articles, copyedit, refine, and improve them - you're implying that i don't, simply because in a particular instance, i put a cite template on an article. and you don't expect an editor to get emotional about that, and for being called by implication a vandal? also, "blanking content you think is accurate" - is that a typo? did you mean inaccurate? because no, i don't blank content that i think is accurate. Anastrophe (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything you blanked, I verified as being correct in about 10 minutes of looking (including the time it took me to cite it in the article). None of it was inaccurate... if you'd bothered to look, you would have known that. So you were blanking accurate content for no good reason... you didn't even indicate you doubted it, had you said that I wouldn't have reverted you. --W.marsh 08:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

University of Kentucky
You may be interested that we are currently pushing University of Kentucky to GA status at the least. I don't know about all of the subpages, but the WTY Library would also make a nice candidate as well. Cheers,  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 16:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell the GA process is just about having a lot of inline citations... the last reviewer I dealt with didn't even read the article. So I don't really like the process. But I will look over the articles... even though my affiliation is with a certain rival of UK... --W.marsh 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed that one of the major sticking points was a SPACE between the end of the sentence and the beginning of the reference. I'll try to take care of it, but won't AWB automatically correct that? I take it you are a UofL fan, I'm one from UK :-)  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I just put references after punctuation with no space... I thought that's what we were supposed to do. I'm not really a manual of style guru. --W.marsh 03:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Peyton Manning
Thank you for semi-protecting the article. The vandalism gets very frustrating. However, the page no longer appears in my watchlist. I'm not sure if that has anything to do with the semiprotection (since the page had been appearing prior to it) or if is some sort of error in the wiki software that just happened to occur at the same time as the semiprotection. Either way, I thought I should let you know. Dlong (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a bug where the edit that protects the page doesn't show up in people's watchlists. I think once people make edits to the actual article it should show up in your watchlist again. Notice that my protection of the page is still the most recent edit. It will probably have to be protected as long as the Colts are alive in the playoffs... Manning is a big target for sports vandals. By the way, your work on the page recently is excellent... are you considering taking it to WP:FAC when you're done? I will help out as much as I can, if you do. --W.marsh 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My initial plan was to get the article up to Good Article status, then apply for a peer review, and after that to apply for featured article status. However, there seems to be a significant backlog in the Good Article reviewing process, so I'll probably apply for a peer review today and see about just bypassing good article status. The article isn't perfect (I'd like to try to find a free image of Manning in the Colts uniform and possibly in the Vols uniform as opposed to the Pro Bowl images we have and a personal life section may be appropriate) but I think it's good enough to apply for a peer review. Thanks for your help. Dlong (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see images being a problem at FAC... actually it might be impossible to get a free image of manning in a Colts jersey, as the NFL technically says you can't use images taken at games for commercial purposes. I've never seen a FAC be rejected because the images weren't "good enough" - the only real requirement is that they be free images, or appropriate fair use, and all the images in the article right now are 100% legit free images. Peer review has been pretty unreliable lately, there might not be much feedback there. But I'll look in on the process and be there if you take it to FAC (I'd suggest waiting till this season is over though). --W.marsh 22:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Louisville and portland canal
When your ready for the article to be assessed, please leave a comment on my talk page. -Jahnx (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I left that comment with you in mind :-) It'd be a shame to waste a good assessment on the article now, hopefully it'll be 2-3X longer by next weekend. I'll leave you a note. --W.marsh 01:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

8664
This may help. Citation ready, with URLs and full attribution. I'll try to implement some later, but I'm heading out for a while.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

2nd XMonad AfD
Hi: you previously contributed to/edited the 1st AfD discussion about XMonad. XMonad has again been nominated for deletion; as you previously edited, I thought you would like to know. (I have also contacted all the other non-anon editors.) If you no longer care, please feel free to ignore this. Thanks. --Gwern (contribs) 02:02 24 December 2007 (GMT)

Thanks for Stopping Speedy Deletion!
Thanks for removing the speedy deletion tag on my article John Avery McIlhenny. As I mentioned, I hadn't quite finished the original article yet, so I appreciate it! --Skb8721 (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I recalled reading about his family and Avery Island in "Salt: A World History" so I figured there was some notability there. --W.marsh 17:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Boston Vegetarian Society
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Boston Vegetarian Society, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion (2)
You've done me one favour (see Deletion), now could you do me another? Could you either delete this talk page or bring back the old comments from that page? 138.217.145.45 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I should, as undeletion was rejected at Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_7, there seems to be some controversy here. You should really take this to WP:MFD for deletion. --W.marsh 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Pittsburgh_Bulldogs
I replied to your DRV comment, it'll be interesting to see your response. Secret account 02:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
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 (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The Town Mayor
Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review. Cheers, trialsanderrors (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Soxπed Ninety Three | t cd b 17:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The First Album (Ella Guru album)
Ye, I know it doesn't apply, but I tagged the band and didn't want this thing hanging around if the band goes. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The band article has been around an unusual 2.5 years and has an entry on All Music Guide, which says they have a label. So I dunno. Maybe someone will save the article. It doesn't seem to be typical band vanity. --W.marsh 00:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL... Great... Do I now need to go write WP:OTHERCRAPHASEXISTEDFORALONGTIME? :) -- Y not? 02:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to stop being rude. --W.marsh 02:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That was a joke as far as I can tell, I don't think it should be construed as rude at all. Keilana talk 02:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Laughing at me, missing my argument, and linking to some condescending shortcut? I take that as rude. --W.marsh 03:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * AGF please. I think that however it came out, it was intended as a joke. Keilana talk 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then he needs to learn how not to make jokes that are easily taken the wrong way. Every element of his comment was snarky in some way... unless you're very good at it and know who you're talking to pretty well, leaving such comments in plain text isn't a very good idea. --W.marsh 03:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a joke. I will now go and crawl back into whichever hole I crawled out of. Call your PCP - she has a prescription for a skin thickener waiting for you. -- Y not? 03:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Continuing to try to make fun of me is really not that great of an idea. --W.marsh 03:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Umaru Fofana
Since when has being a BBC correspondent ever been an assetion of notability. The BBC has hundreds of correspondents all over the world. It's a huge organisation and merely being a small pebble in that large pond is hardly being important much less notable. All the article asserts is that he has a job with the BBC, that is hardly an assertion of notability. -- Web H amster  00:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then use WP:PROD or WP:AFD, speedy deletion is for uncontroversial cases. I say it's a claim of notability... there certainly are notable correspondents for the major media outlets, so holding that position makes you exponentially more likely to be notable than holding most jobs. --W.marsh 00:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Uncontroversial" has nothing to do with it. There have been plenty of controversial CSDed articles. But as they article isn't worth getting into an arguent over I shall attempt the prod though personally I thinks prods are biggest waste of energy on WP. -- Web H amster  00:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * CSD has long been about uncontroversial deletions, except for BLPs and copyvios. But A7 even says if it's controversial then to take it to AFD (but PROD works too). --W.marsh 00:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between controversy and interpreting something different. This article is hardly controversial. You interpret working for the BBC as notable, whereas I know it isn't having had a parent working for the BBC for 30 years so know quite a lot about how the internals of the BBC works. Being a no-name foreign correspondent isn't notable. That isn't to say that there aren't other things he's notable for. But like I say though, it's an inconsequential article not worth getting into an argument over, I've prodded it. -- Web H amster  00:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Jason Nitsch
i wasn't even finished making the page before it was deleted.
 * Try creating a draft in your userspace, e.g. User:Aezook/Jason Nitsch then copy it back to an article, Jason Nitch when you're ready. --W.marsh 21:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

antilenguaje
Hello. My name is Ricardo R. Dorado, I have a note that you have deleted my attempt to contribution for antilenguaje. the reason for the text to be in Spanish is because the original concept was thought up in Spanish (an English version will come later), and the reason why it was so small is because It was still being developed, I only saved it to have an idea of how it was looking. it was by no means done, and it being my first contribution, is some what imposing.

I would appreciate your attention as to the time you have for your decision taking in regards to deleting the contributions that people want to make. Because, if it isn't for that, how can wikipedia work.
 * Well there is a Spanish Wikipedia for articles written in Spanish. On the English Wikipedia, we really need the articles to be written in English. --W.marsh 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

checking on a deletion
Hi W.marsh,

I have no idea how to edit Wikipedia articles, and have no time to try right now. I did want to draw your attention to an article about Mark Busse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Busse that should rightfully be deleted. There was a whole deletion discussion in the talk page which appears to have been deleted also. Your contact was the last one that appears on the talk page.

I know Mark personally, and while a nice guy, he is a perfectly average owner of an average Canadian design studio, is said to be a good teacher but, I would argue, is not any more notable than 100s of other Canadian graphic designers/design studio owners. There are certainly many other Canadian designers who are more notable, and are not listed in Wikipedia. For example, the Graphic Designers of Canada, www.gdc.net, of which Mark is currently a regional chapter president (for the British Columbia Chapter only), has a fellowship which is given to designers of distinction, who have made a contribution to the Canadian design community. The names of GDC fellows are listed here: http://www.gdc.net/about_gdc/fellows.php

I would argue that some of those fellows, not even all, should be listed in Wikipedia, such as Jim Rimmer who digitized many metal type faces for the first time, or Albert Ng, who through great dedication over many years achieved a professional accreditation process for Ontario graphic designers which led to the formation of the RGD (Registered Graphic Designers), or Walter Jungkind, who introduced Swiss design education to Canada, or Theo Dimson who was a pioneer of Canadian poster design. However, none of these notable people are even listed in Wikipedia.

I see that at least one of the GDC fellows, Allan Fleming, is listed, and he is represented in the National Gallery of Canada. His article however, is very short, and does not include a mention of his wife and family dog, as Mark's does.

I would like to submit that Mark Busse's article is clearly intended for self-promotion purposes and I am sure was inserted by himself or his own design studio.

As a graphic designer myself, when I search for Canadian designers on Wikipedia, I would like to see notable designers, ideally with a long career and accomplishments, not youngish self-promoters who are mainly bloggers.

Is it possible to open up this page again for a deletion discussion?

Best regards,

civano —Preceding unsigned comment added by Civano (talk • contribs) 00:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The deletion discussion was 2 years ago... that's an eon in Wikipedia terms. I think if you want it deleted, you will need to start a new deletion discussion, see WP:AFD or I can help you if you want. --W.marsh 21:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Style guidance for PD sourced content.
You may be interested in this.--Paleorthid (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Abigail McCarthy
Thanks re Abigail McCarthy. Morninghasbroken (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
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 (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion
Don't be so quick to give up! ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TheListUpdater/The Shops at Ithaca Mall
I put the tag on there because it's a cross-namespace redirect (from userspace to articlespace), which I thought wasn't allowed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If But For One
Why do you keep deleting the If But For One article. They were signed by Sancrosanct Records just like the band Remembrance but you don't delete them???
 * The deleted article didn't mention the label. A source for this claim would be helpful too. --W.marsh 17:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

gussethunter
Wht delete this article, just because it dosn't mean much to you, this group is mentioned in many books and even songs.

What gives you the right to delete/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellisbyrd (talk • contribs) 18:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Money As Debt
I added a {hangon} tag. It is pity that by the time I was ready to add more information(references and more content) you deleted the article! This article was online for less than 10 minutes. Well done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsriniva (talk • contribs) 20:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Kokey
My bad. I misread the date for the AfD and looked at the diff for September, not June. I've restored the page. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 21:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for clearing up Talk:Wikipedia/official names and Wikipedia/official names for me - I possibly should have just speedied them myself, but I wanted to let someone else verify that I wasn't doing something clumsy (again), especially as I'd already linked to it from the Pump! A bit embarrassing... Looks good now. Andrewa (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

DRV
Why is the deletion or overturning of such deletion relevant to any rationale I may have had in the closing of the AFD? You should be reminded that DRV and AFD are for discussing the merits of the article, not the the people deleting the article. You also seem to have something against a lot of my admin actions. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Admins need to explain their actions in situations like this, or if there's a specific question. You chose instead to blank the question. Is it really that puzzling that I might have a problem with such actions? --W.marsh 03:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion was moot. The place for discussion is in a central place like DRV, not on isolated talk pages that not everyone will see. Please, in the future, tell me when you have a problem with something I've done, mention it on my talk page or something. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So you can blank it? I made my comment in the DRV... you can explain your close there. Your comment is utterly bizarre... you tell me to make comments about your actions in a central place like DRV, then say that the place for such comments in the future is on your talk page, not DRV? --W.marsh 03:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
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 (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)