User talk:SoWhy/Archive 11

Rizon
I guess you can see what I was talking about now? He isn't going to give up. Tothwolf (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand, sorry I could not reply sooner but I was out. I placed a range-block on 66.63.160.240/28, blocking both IPs that have been used recently. If it restarts like this evening with other IPs, I'll protect it (or take it to WP:RFPP again, you can tell them I sent you ;-)). Regards  So Why  23:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. He is indeed back at it again with another IP so I went ahead and put in a new report. I suspect he didn't expect those fast Huggle reverts yesterday though. Tothwolf (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Kenneth L. Ton
Hello! I nominated this article for speedy deletion. You declined with the comment "claims of notability are enough (even weak ones)." The man was a high school drama teacher. In my opinion, this does not qualify him for a Wikipedia article, which probably was written by one of his former students. If one about him is allowed to remain, what is to stop people from starting to write articles about their high school history, biology, or math teachers? Could you please explain in greater detail why you believe this man is notable? Thank you very much. LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please see Galen Marshall, who appears to have as little notability as Kenneth. L. Ton. Both articles were created by User:Sallyrob. Note in both she cites "Eyewitness account by Robert E. Nylund" as a reference, which doesn't remotely meet Wikipedia criteria. Will we eventually see articles about everyone who ever taught her? LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A7 has a deliberately lower standard than notability. Claims of being in a newspaper and on a radio show are enough to fail it. I do not believe the article is worth of inclusion or anything, I just think it's not completely impossible based on the claims. Just PROD or AFD it instead, it's not a difference really if it exists for five more days or not. As for Galen Marshall, you noticed that another admin declined it correctly. Regards  So Why  23:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your response. I nominated both articles for deletion at . LiteraryMaven (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

RfA for Mikaey
Dear SoWhy,

Thank you for your input on my RfA. I wanted to take a minute to explain myself, but I wasn't sure that it would be appropriate to do so in the RfA itself.

As to the mistaken CSD nom, you're right. I jumped on that one too quickly, and picked a reason that didn't stand up to even a little bit of scrutiny. I still feel that it has failed to assert why it is notable enough to stay on Wikipedia (and I wonder to myself if the deletion had gone through if I had tagged it with instead), but I'm not about to start a fight over it.

And why do I have so many edits over just the last three days? Well...turns out that I was one of the victims of Office Depot's downsizing last week, so I've had a lot of extra time at home lately. It's not that I was desperately trying to get my edit count up -- I didn't even know what people looked for in an admin candidate until after my nom.

I'd welcome any other feedback you'd want to give.

Anywho, cheers. Matt (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No it wouldn't (at least not if someone like me had reviewed it who sticks to the policy's scope). It's about a name in general, not about a certain person and thus not covered by A7. But I did not want to insult you or imply anything negative for the Huggle edits. As you will notice on my userpage, I am a Huggler myself. It's just that those edits, while usually very helpful to maintain our quality, are not something that allows anyone to judge whether you'd be good with the admin tools. That needs more user interaction and discussion because we need to be able to evaluate how you handle stressful users that blame you for everything, who complain and annoy you and we need to see how good you are able to discuss with others and understand policy. That cannot be done with Huggle edits, so I suggest you also participate in such discussion, like in Wikipedia: and Talk: namespaces. Regards  So Why  23:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see where you're coming from. That will most likely be something I'll be working on in the coming months.  Thanks, Matt (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Another tip: I suggest you always use edit summaries in your edits (you can let the software remind you using "my preferences" => "Editing" => "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary"), it's very helpful for others to know what you did with an edit. Regards  So Why  00:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Help needed and appreciated, please.
Remember this discussion, about a sockpuppet/anon IP's editing? I think it is one user using these IPs: (86.148.109.115, 86.165.82.109, 81.157.88.230, 86.132.132.78 86.145.113.100 and quite frankly, I have no idea how to counteract it. The user seems to be watching my contributions, as none of those IPs edited the articles My Name Is Bruce and Conflict: Desert Storm II until after I had edited them recently, and simply reverted my edits.  I reported the activity at AIV, when the user was editing three articles Resident Evil 3, Syphon Filter: Dark Mirror and Syphon Filter: Logan's Shadow, resulting in the semi-protection of RE3 but leaving the other two unprotected. Don't really know what to do here, I can't just edit war away until it gains more attention, AIV doesn't seem to be the answer (put in another report) and I'm not sure anything else really applies. Any help or advice appreciated. Geoff B (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Seeing the similar patterns, it's probably this user :Sockpuppet investigations/Kevin7557/Archive. I suggest you amend that case with those IPs to the case and let an SPI knowing admin block them immediately as socks. Regards  So Why  23:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Geoff B (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

page-move vandals
Oh well. I guess that it's pointless to implement all those page-move protections I asked for because trolls hop all over the place. But look at the log for the Thailand article: Its move-protections were allowed to expire, and it got vandalized a second time, which looks like possible motive for move protection. I'm not forcing you to protect it; you decide for yourself as an admin.

If you've seen the "Protecting BLP articles feeler survey" you might think that Wikipedia isn't as safely open as it used to be. Pretty soon if page-move is being abused most of the time I might find page-moves to be an admin privilege. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, yes, some people want to restrict editing because of such stupid vandals. Trust me, I hate those ideas as much as you do. But the protections you asked for, they were all Grawp-targets and as User:JarlaxleArtemis shows us, that guy is having some serious troubles and no amount of protection (short of locking down all articles) will help with that. The best way is probably WP:DENY, i.e. just reverting him on the stop and not to try any other measures because they will fail anyway and it's just a waste of time. The only thing that might help is to file a lawsuit for all the insults and harassment and let the justice system take care of it. But that's probably not really working and even if, it's for the Wikimedia Foundation to do. So in this case, I'd have protected if they were subject to article specific vandalism but as they were just randomly chosen by a vandal who is known to do so, it would have been a waste of time.  So Why  09:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I get you. But keep in mind that the administrator NawlinWiki runs around locking page-move for the mere "no reason to move this page" reason whether or not there's been PMV. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Blah
Sorry about this closing lark, just edit conflicted with you. I was about to close, but you did it first. Anyway, I've detranscluded from WP:RfA. Cheers. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, no problem. Btw, for the future, you might want to bookmark User:Enigmaman/SNOW. It tells you everything to do if SNOWing. Regards  So Why  00:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Deutsch
Hi there! Nice to be on your talk page again, :-) Odd request, I know, but just wondering if you would put a welcome template on my talkpage at the de wiki.  I don't like having the red link.  I was going to give myself one but I couldn't find the templates (seeing as I don't know German!)  Thank you, :-)   Mae din \talk 16:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm fine with odd. It's de:Vorlage:Willkommen. I placed it for you. Regards  So  Why  16:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Mae din \talk 16:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Inherent notability of places
Hi there,

A few days ago (maybe a week) an admin (I think it was you!) posted on an AfD a link to a discussion somewhere where the consensus that places are inherently notable was agreed. Sadly I can't remember where I saw it, but if you have it to hand, i'd be grateful (and I'll file it away properly this time!) -- Ged UK  13:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not me, although I have invoked that in Letsdrinktea's RFA as a A7 mistake. I'd suggest Notability (geography), an essay, on this topic and you might want to try and ask, who wrote User:Grutness/One street per 50,000 people, about where those discussions are located. Regards  So Why  15:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The essay isn't quite what i thought i'd seen before, though it does set it out quite clearly. I remember being told about that consensus after CSD way back when, and was quite happy to trust the admin who told me. However, as my RfA is getting closer (in my mind) I'm just trying to find something written down that i've just had in my head. It seems odd that such a well quoted consensus only seems to be referred to in essays. Thanks though! -- Ged UK  15:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; 9 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:


 * News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
 * Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 00:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick question
Regarding the deletion of all those F1 portal subpages, would a G7 have been a more appropriate tag than a G6? Thanks, Aptery  gial  11:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am wary of using G6 if better tags exist, that's all. G6 is a fallback criterion and needs more explanation than others and in this case G7 was applicable as you were the creator. I'd suggest you use G7 every time you want something deleted that you created and noone substantially edited afterwards but if you want to be thorough you can use both tags or specify a reason with the edit-summary when tagging G7. Regards  So Why  11:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm the first to admit deletion is not my forté. BTW, I've listed the navigation page for those subpages for deletion, here. Aptery  gial  11:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Author of multiple books? Domenico Attanasii‎‎
I think you have been hoaxed. This was previously described as an author of poems and short stories, which may or may not have been included in some books, which may or may not have actually been sold. The ISBNs don't work. There was no article I could find in the author's native language Wikipedia. Perhaps I should have used but that seems so offensive.sinneed (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * it-wiki had an article that was deleted. Remember that A7 does not have to have verifiable information, just credible claims, which exist. I will see if I can get a copy of the it-wiki article to compare it but I suggest you use PROD or AFD here. Regards  So Why  14:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * hi, this is the article deleted: User:SoWhy/Domenico Attanasi. On it.wiki this bio would be absolutely non-notable; this is a clear example of self-promotion (only vanity-press) Gregorovius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.221.35.153 (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is the "credible" claims thing that gets me when I get tangled with A7. :) Thanks.sinneed (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Grazie Gregorovious. Okay, I reviewed the it-wiki copy in Italian but it is much more spammy in Italian than it is in English (it fails G11 here). Italian C4 (which seems a mix of our A7 and G11) seems less strict than our A7, judging notability and not only claims of importance/significance like A7 does. So it is not a 1:1 copy of it-wiki and not a A7 candidate because of the claims made, so declining was correct. I think the claims are credible enough for that (to fail A7 they need to be completely unlikly). Regards  So Why  15:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I entirely agree that your speedy decline was correct, and apologize that it sounds like (as I reread) I thought it wasn't. I put in an AfD.  Thanks for doing the admin CSD review thing.  The "credible" decision alone is enough to convince me I never want admin tools (entirely asside from the whole way-too-short-a-temper that I have).  All the best.sinneed (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching
I put in a request but as soon as I did (its still in there though) I thought i'd ask you if you could help me? THanks and Peace Out—Permethius RFP (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt I can, I am fairly new as an admin myself. I can give you some tips though: At 400+ edits, your edit activity is far too low for adminship. Most !voters at RFA expect >2000 edits before they feel comfortable judging the candidate. You should get more edits in multiple areas you are interested in and would be interested in as an admin. I think with your current experiece, admin coaching is too soon to be really working. Regards  So Why  16:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, most of those edits have been at the heavy metal/hard rock etc. articles.I guess i just want to learn everything so when my edits get around the 1500 to 2k mark (which will be very soon) I wont have any problems .But Thanks and Peace Out—Permethius RFP (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest learning by doing. If you contribute to discussions and at areas that interest you, you will pick up everything you need to know sooner or later ;-)  So Why  16:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

potomac backyard wrestling
dear sowhy,

I would like to know why you deleted potomac backyard wrestling page. potomac backyard wrestling is a backyard wrestling leage based in potomac, maryland. the page is liget according to the if i deleted your artical.

thanks for your time, have a wonderful day zach wikipoff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach wikipoff (talk • contribs) 19:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Because the page was about a club and did not indicate that it might meet our guidelines for inclusion. Unless you can tell me why it should be considered a notable subject that can be referenced by reliable sources, there is no reason to have such an article. Regards  So Why  19:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Companion
No, I have to say, I disagree. Taking a hard line against the removal of information that cites and considers multiple sources in favor of hard line positions in fanwank debates is not something to be taken seriously. It is something to be treated with a hard-line, uncompromising "No, we are not doing that." Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You can disagree with it, but as it's not clear cut vandalism, reverting him is revert-warring. I think you are a bit emotionally attached to the subject and should reflect on it. You have experienced yourself that it won't stop if you revert it, so it's pointless to continue. Let it rest, get some more input, then have consensus on the issue. Edit-warring is never a good idea and I have to say, you, as an admin, should be a role model here and not do so, no matter how much you don't like it. Regards  So Why  22:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your ruling on Starship Troopers 3: Marauder
You state that you need more recent activity -- the vandalism/NPOVandfansite drive-by occurred in the last week. How is that not recent enough? I only just checked my watch page and caught it there today. I'm not pissed that you declined, but it's a pain in the butt to have to repeatedly fix the page after the same set of dynamic IP addresses swing through and alter stuff, when a semi-protect can at least eliminate it for a little while. I had corrected the fansite inclusion only one week ago, only to have several sections altered within the next day. I'm willing to accept your ruling regardless, but I'd at least like to understand better why multiple alterations in the last week, as part of a long-term pattern, is not enough to warrant even a short protection of some sort. Thanks in advance for the help! JasonDUIUC (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Because protection is the most interfering action an admin can do against the "anyone can edit"-principle that governs Wikipedia and other wikis, it needs to be the last resort when other ways fail and only if it's needed to stop disruption. Protection is a measure to stop current activity, not to stop activity that may or may not happen in the future. In this case there was no activity on 6, 7 and 8 March and almost none afterwards, so there is no current indication that the previously happening disruption will continue in a way that it can't be handled by warning and blocking the users involved. Regards  So Why  08:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. On that note, would it be appropriate to bet $10 that within the next day or so, the anonymous IP guy from the fansite comes back and goes edit-crazy again? I'm kidding... sort of. In the case that it DOES happen, though, would THAT be enough to request the semi-protect? Thanks! JasonDUIUC (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I only bet if I am sure I will win But yes, if they do return and vandalize in a way that can't be contained otherwise, you can ask for protection again. Regards  So  Why  08:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Doomsday (novel 2008)
Hi. re this article, why is it not an A3 (blatant nonsense), when there's no evidence the book is anything more than WP:MADEUP ? CultureDrone (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it reads (apart from the copied Harry Potter infobox I removed) like it's about a book the creator of the article is writing or wrote. WP:MADEUP is a sub-guideline of WP:NOT and all reasons derived from WP:NOT are non-criteria per WP:CSD. G3 requires a hoax that is so blatant it is vandalism and that requires a reason to assume bad faith. I see nothing that blatant here, so it fails G3. Regards  So Why  13:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Mosely Music Group at WP:RFPP
Actually, the IP bounces:
 * http://samspade.org/whois/96.225.35.56 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/96.225.35.56
 * http://samspade.org/whois/71.172.109.76 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.172.109.76
 * http://samspade.org/whois/71.172.134.215 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.172.134.215

With the exception of two anonymous edits from a Croatian editor on Jan 11, the anonymous editing on the article appears to be one editor from Newark using a Verizon connection, going back to at least July 2008.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That might be the case but there is no indication of that in the article history, nor any editing disruptive enough to warrant protection. Regards  So Why  14:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll wait until I have to revert again, and make my next report more explicit.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic application
My sincere apologies about mistagging the article, do you think I should work on moving it to [Wiktionary]]?  I Gr av e R ob  § talk ♥ stalk §
 * No problem. Just be more careful with the most abused tags like G1, G3, A1, A7 and G11. As for transwikifying, I think it should remain as a stub for now, it looks like something that might be more than a dictionary entry. Regards  So Why  14:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

AiV 204.38.169.4 confusion
I'm confused by your response on this request. I wrote:
 * 'The user never does enough vandalism on one day to merit a block - but their history is consistent vandalism over a very long period of time'

and you responded:
 * 'Request a block when they've done enough vandalism on one day.'

Logically that means 'Never request it'. (Since, per the original statement, they never do enough on one day.).. Do we permanently do nothing in cases like this? Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, use 4im-warnings instead. Before I tagged it today, this IP was not correctly identified with SharedIPEdu (which allows blocking without a full set of warnings). So any IP user could claim not to be warned correctly because of the shared IP status. If this IP vandalizes again now, it has a permanent school-warning on the talk page that serves as a warning that it can be blocked without a full set of warnings. Regards  So Why  14:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Alrighty - thanks very much for the clarification. Quaeler (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your sig
Good point, thanks!  Flying Toaster  17:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

IslandDefence
Hey, I was the user who requested a speedy of IslandDefence due to A7, but you declined. But technically, wouldn't it be A7 as the map type was not notable, and not like big news or anything. I mean, grifball was big news, as it was made by the red vs blue creators, as well as be given a special map by Bungie, however, the map IslandDefence is not notable, so wouldn't it fall under A7? Deavenger (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, because of two reasons: a.) A7 is not about notability but less than that and b.) it only applies if the article is about a person, a company/group or web content (not to books, movies, tv shows, software etc.). In this case it was not really notable but it does not fit within the narrow scope that A7 allows. So it cannot be speedy deleted as A7. You might want to re-read A7's wording. Regards  So Why  20:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. But for pages like this, would I have to use a PROD instead? Deavenger (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you want it deleted (or use WP:AFD). This is why I replaced it with such a tag after all :-) Regards  So Why  22:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thanks. Deavenger (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Samma Dynasty Copyvio Notices
I noticed a massive removal of content from an article on Jam Nizamuddin II by user:Andyjsmith, which puzzled me because I thought the material was taken from a book in the public domain. I tracked down the book and author, and found that it is indeed public domain, so restored the material. But then I looked at the talk page for the main editor on the article, User talk:Dawoodabro and found a mass of other copyvio notices. They include several on other members of the Samma Dynasty based on material from the same public domain source, easy to identify because the names all start with "Jam". I put a note explaining why I am confident the source work is public domain on Talk:Jam Unar. What is the right way to get all these copyvio notices removed and articles restored? Not that the articles are very good, but as powerful rulers of a major state the Jams deserve articles and these are the best we have until a historian comes along and improves them. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not really good with those copyright stuff, which is why I referred it to Copyright problems to get further input. As pointed out, that book was reprinted in 1982 so there might be copyright on that edition. If you have reliable information that this material is indeed public domain, you can simply be bold and remove the copyvio-templates (just undo it if possible); use the edit summaries to explain why you think it's PD, it should be fine then. Regards  So  Why  16:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert either but am fairly sure that while there may be copyright on new material in the 1982 edition, such as a new introduction or footnotes etc., the original work is public domain for the reasons I gave in Talk:Jam Unar. It looks as if I can undo the copyvio edit, but I am not really comfortable doing so since the notice says "Do not edit this page until an administrator has resolved this issue", and that ain't me. But if nobody gets around to checking your note on Copyright problems, I think this and the other articles get automatically deleted after 7 days - which would be wrong. Also, although the main editor seems to have copied from various other sources in other articles, I think in this case there should be some sort of retraction of the notices on his talk page and removal of his block on editing. I really dislike this kind of stuff. It is so easy to find interesting and uncontroversial subjects with good sources that demand articles, instead of getting into these angry debates! Aymatth2 (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right. I have left a request to offer her insight in this matter. Regards  So  Why  17:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. Things would be much quicker and easier for the admins at CP if they were automatically deleted after 7 days, but they aren't. :) See Copyright problems/Advice for admins for how these are usually handled. That said, it's quite possible that when I or another administrator investigated these, we would have missed that there was an earlier book in public domain. So, thanks much for finding that! The template does advise against non-admin editing, but, frankly, when I find cases where that has been wisely ignored, I don't see anything wrong with it. Anyway, your handling of Jam Nizamuddin II looks perfect, right down to the note at the article's talk page and the note you placed about pd at the bottom. I'll look further into this to see if there's any input I can offer, and I'm watching this conversation in case there are other issues I'm not noticing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I've been poking more, and I wouldn't have missed the PD origin of this one, because SoWhy noted it in the listing. That said, this contributor has a serious history of copyright infringement. While this article and the one you already annotated were evidently clear, he created an article on Molana Jan Mohammad Abbasi yesterday from a plainly copyrighted source: . I see he's created several articles pasting from various Pakistani government websites; I'm having trouble finding direct text on Pakistan's government policy, but evidence suggests these are not public domain: I see "© Federal Investigation Agency - Govt. of Pakistan" at one government site. (I just lost half of this reply, and I have no idea where it went.)


 * Although his use of this source seems to have been misunderstood, he has violated copyright on many occasions, including yesterday, and was clearly notified why this is inappropriate multiple times, including in April 2008 when he infringed on the New York Times in a now deleted version of Jam Sadiq Ali. I think the block is probably not inappropriate and may help prevent him being indefinitely blocked, if it can stop him from persisting.


 * I'll try leaving him a personal note about this, but I do have some concerns that a language barrier may be a problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you for the quick feedback, help and advice. Looking more at the edit history I can certainly see the issues with this editor. I may spend a bit more time on the issues with the content of Samma Dynasty and related articles, which seems like an intriguing and neglected subject. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sakura-Con
As I have just registered here and have no idea who can edit the page currently as it is on a lock down due to vandalization. Could you please add the following names to the 2009 guest list at the bottom table

Todd Haberkorn, Hideo Okamoto, David Stanworth

the names can be verified here: http://www.sakuracon.org/programming/guests.php

thank you, SeijinDinger (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is semi-protected which means you can edit it once your account becomes autoconfirmed (which happens after 4 days and 10 edits). I have made the update for you in this case. Enjoy your stay here :-)  So Why  09:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Cityzone
Why did you remove my page Cityzone? It seems that big businesses can have pages and so can bands and artists but when you wish to describe the work of smaller organisations that have no tangible revenues, such as Cityzone, but deliver a good service for their industry they are considered advertising. Please explain?

Please also let me know where I can take this complaint further?

Further Examples (and these are profit making organisations):
 * Thomas Pink
 * London Camera Exchange
 * Casenove Stock Brokers
 * Tesco Personal Finance

Morganjbryan (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Every subject can have an article if it satisfies our notability guidelines, in this case the ones for companies. There was no indication that your article can meet those guidelines and as such it was deleted under speedy deletion criterion #A7. Unless you can provide reliable sources that this company of yours can meet the guidelines, deletion was correct within our guidelines and policies. You can always use deletion review but without aforementioned sources, every review will agree with my decision. And if you have those sources, it's not needed because I will reinstate the article myself if you show them to me. Regards  So Why  18:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not my company although I have done work for them. Do you mean news and articles on sites (sources) such as Imperial College London, Business Week, enterpriseweek.org.uk, Eastside Consulting (on Social Enterprise), CASS Business School, etc., etc.? Morganjbryan (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources are those "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", i.e. newspapers, professional news sites on the web, magazines, specialist books etc. To warrant an article, the subject should have been covered in such sources and that coverage should have been not only trivial in its nature. Regards  So Why  23:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Protection of Wikiproject User scripts/Scripts/livepreview.js
You recently semi-protected Wikiproject User scripts/Scripts/livepreview.js... almost all user scripts are fully protected, so I was curious as to why you only semi'd this one. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not think full protection is necessary, this way established non-admins can still fix issues with the script if needed. Regards  So Why  17:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay; just thought I'd ask. Besides, nobody's really using it right now so any changes can't really cause problems at this time. –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who
Barring any new uprisings during the night, there would appear to be a compromise paragraph formed in the talk page. Unless you find disagreement posted between now and whatever time tommorow, feel free to unlock the article and/or make the alteration noted on the talk page. Thanks for catching the edit war. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Regards  So Why  10:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

RE:OSE
Does this seem better? :-) &mdash; Coralmizu (Mizu onna sango15) Drop a line  20:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused, could you give me a hint what this message is to tell me?  So Why  20:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hint. :) -- Amalthea 21:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point but why "OSE"? Btw, I think #08E8DE is not a nice color for a sig^^  So Why  21:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Beats me. Maybe Mizu has seen you for who you really are: Ose. ;) -- Amalthea 21:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sssshhhhh! Don't tell them!  So Why  21:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hahaha. My mistake for the ambiguity; I intended to use a link there and must have forgotten. I meant WP:OSE (the topic of discussion after my RfA regarding my username). ;-). I will have to change my signature color, though. It looks a lot different on my browser. Cheers, &mdash; Coralmizu (Mizu onna sango15) Drop a line  04:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC).

Adopt
Hi, I saw your name in the list of adopters and you're also an administrator. I want to get adopted are you willing to adopt? So far I've had a problem with picture upload but I sorted it out now my monobook.js isn't working as expected, can you help?—StaticVision (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I can help you if you like and I can also adopt you, but be warned that I do not run a sophisticated adoption scheme like other people. I provide help if you need it but I will not provide "classes" or tasks for you to do. It's more a "help to help yourself" way of adoption. If you are okay with that, I'd be happy to adopt you.
 * However you decide, feel free to ask me about your monobook.js problem. Just tell me what's wrong and I'll do my best to help. Regards  So Why  14:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'm fine with that I think that's what I want. I added importScript('User:Ioeth/friendly.js'); importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js'); to my monobook. js but it doesn't show [rollback (Vandal)] like that —StaticVision (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Then I'd be happy to adopt you. You may use on your talkpage to advertise your status. As for the Twinkle problem, have you done a cache bypassing reload? It tells you at the top of User:StaticVision/monobook.js how to do that.
 * PS: You should use multiple ":" to indent a reply to another reply, so other people can see who you are replying to. And I strongly advise you to use edit-summaries for all your edits. It allows others to understand what you did without having to check your edit. Regards  So Why  15:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * An account needs to be WP:AUTOCONFIRMED to be able to use Twinkle or Friendly, so you'll have to wait a bit longer, StaticVision. -- Amalthea 15:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok I will wait. I added the box to my talk page by the way, will post here if I run into some problem thanks! —StaticVision (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ooops, I meant userpage, not talk page. Sorry.  So Why  17:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009  Unsubscribe &middot; Single-page &middot; Full edition &raquo;  — 16 March 2009


 * News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
 * Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 23:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Little Fyodor
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fuhghettaboutit#Little_Fyodor thx riffic (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * thank you. riffic (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have restored the article and declined the speedy based on 's judgment. Please clean it up per Wikipedia's manual of style. Regards  So Why  12:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Lag them in
Hi, I noticed that you deleted the article I tagged under a different criteria (A7 instead of G10). Was I in error, or do you feel that the article could have been deleted under G10 as well? Thanks in advance. decltype (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You tagged it G11, not G10. A7 clearly applies to a website with no indication of notability, while G11 would be borderline here: I like to use 's way of determining G11: "In essence, if you blanked out the promotional/spammy bits, you should be starring at a blank page." In this case, it would have been possible to remove the spammy parts and have a valid stub left, so it was not a clear G11. My advice is to be careful with using G11 and use A7 where it applies. And remember, if you can remove the spam and still have an article left, do that instead of tagging G11. Regards  So Why  12:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough answer. And yes, of course I meant G11 and not G10. decltype (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Please do not hesitate to ask if you have other questions. Regards  So Why  12:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

young director award
Hi,

you deleted the young director award page due to copyright violation.

The text used on the page has been created for Young director award by a PR agency.

It is used in many other places, as it is a description of what the young director award is. It can for example be found on the official yda homepage http://youngdirectoraward.com.

I have the permission of young director award to use this text.

For clearance you can refer to info@yda2009.com.

I hope the page will soon be restored.

Best Hannes Jakobsen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannes jakobsen (talk • contribs) 13:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but to be used in Wikipedia, it's not enough you were allowed to use the text, it needs to be released under the terms of the GFDL. The website you are referring to clearly claims to keep its copyright on the content ("&copy; 2009...") and as such we have to assume the copyright was not given up in favor of a GFDL-compatible licensing. You can try and prove otherwise by following the steps at Requesting copyright permission. Also, please be advised that I did not delete the article but . You need to contact him (after you followed above how-to and have obtained appropriate permission) to get the article restored. Regards  So Why  13:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: I wonder if I can bother you...
Sure, I can do that; but it won't even require a drop-down list of options, unless you want a different summary for each criterion. What would you like the standard edit summary (or summaries) to be? —Animum (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, ideally it would be great if one could configure them on a subpage (like User:SoWhy/csddeclines) but I guess that would be quite hard to do. But generally, I can think of quite a few I need often. As for the dropdown, I think it would be nice because there might be multiple reasons to decline a certain criterion. Take A7 for example: I could decline it because it cannot be applied to software, to movies, to books, to TV shows, to fictional characters etc. But I can also decline it if the article makes claims of importance or if I can find such indications using a quick Google News search. So on a page with an A7 I'd like to be able to select from a list with (for example):
 * decline speedy - A7 cannot be applied to movies; use WP:PROD or WP:AFD
 * decline speedy - A7 cannot be applied to TV shows; use WP:PROD or WP:AFD
 * decline speedy - A7 cannot be applied to books; use WP:PROD or WP:AFD
 * decline speedy - A7 cannot be applied to software; use WP:PROD or WP:AFD
 * decline speedy - A7 cannot be applied to fictional characters; use WP:PROD or WP:AFD
 * decline speedy - makes credible claims of importance or significance; use WP:PROD or WP:AFD
 * decline speedy - has multiple Google News hits to indicate possible importance or significance; use WP:PROD or WP:AFD
 * Or on a G1 there might be reasons like "not nonsense, G1 cannot be applied to foreign-language material", "not nonsense, G1 is not a replacement for WP:NOT" etc. That's why I had the suggestion with the dropdown in the first place, because I can imagine multiple often used decline reasons within the same tag. Also, sometimes one might want to decline a tagging based on multiple tags, like A7+G11. To make it short, different summaries for different taggings would be really needed imho to make such a script useful because they serve as an explanation to the creator and the tagger as to why the speedy was declined. It'd be great if you could implement that with a list of often-used reasons I can write you for this. Regards  So Why  23:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I can definitely do that, but I'll regrettably be busy for the next few weeks, so I won't be able to write it immediately.  After the second week in April, I'll be able to write it.  Best! —Animum (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be great. As with EasyBlock, I assume a custom edit-summary will be possible as well then? Take your time of course. If you think a per-user config is too complicated or if you need a basic set of standard summaries, just tell me once you started and I will provide them in any formatting you specify. Thanks again! :-)  So Why  21:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

 * Thank you very much .  So Why  21:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Peter Barretta
As I had noted on the vandalism page, the edits made are not vandalism as they really do need to be done. The removals this user initated are pretty much required under neutrality and notability for the Lisa Pin-Up, and do not seem to warrant an indefinate block. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but removing large parts of an article after being told to stop and adding POV text instead like here do constitute vandalism. His removals where completely arbitrary, removing stub tagging and references sections as well. I am willing to consider an unblock if the editor in question promises to less vandalism-like editing but just because an article does need cleanup, unexplained removal of content after multiple escalating warnings and reverts is still vandalism. If you are willing to make good edits, you usually do not ignore other people's concerns or add aforementioned POV to the article. I'm sorry but nothing indicates anything but vandalism. Regards  So Why  21:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Admin Actions
Hello! I am taking you up on your offer for pointers on admin actions. I do a lot of work at UAA and somewhat confused by the block options, specifically, disabling account creation. I understand what it does, but when are appropriate times to choose that action? The summary lists "bad-faith usernames" should have account creation blocked, but are there other times when it should be disabled as well? Thanks in advance. TN X Man 21:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Add  to your monobook.js. You'll never have to worry about block options again. :) –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  22:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You should disable "Prevent account creation" if you are blocking an IP you know to be used by multiple people who might not be responsible, so they will not be caught in the IP block if they register an account (usually except schools where schoolblock can be chosen as a block reason and where account creation would probably result in further vandalism). It's whats called a "softblock". Another scenario is range-blocking - if you have to block a range of IPs, it might be a good idea to allow account creation for those users who were caught in the range-block. Specifically for UAA, it should only be used if you have indication the user chose the username in bad faith, to disrupt or vandalize. If you are blocking someone who just made a mistake when registering the name, they should be able to register a new name. HTH  So Why  22:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To Juliancolton: Nice tip of course but EasyBlock is not always flexible and an admin needs to understand Special:Block without it .  So Why  22:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Account creation is only disabled in bad-faith cases. As a side note, I've been trying out the new functions today and if you ever see something you think I've done wrong, don't hesitate to let me know. Best, TN X Man  22:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, quite true. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  22:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To phrase it another way: Account creation is disabled if you have indication that the user/IP blocked will continue disrupting by registering a new account. For example, if you block an IP based on a WP:AIV report, you'll usually do it with EasyBlock (as Julian suggested) and it will prevent account creation because the vandalism is indication that the IP will want to continue with an account. Regards  So Why  22:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sacred Heart Primary School
Hey SoWhy...

Around the article Sacred Heart Primary School (which redirects to Sacred Heart Primary School, Kew, Victoria), it should be removed. The reason behind this is that many links point to the generic Sacred Heart Primary School article that do not necessarily mean to point to the school in Kew. I asked for it to be deleted.

--ric_man (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I know you did. I declined it for certain reasons: As long as there is only one such article, there is no reason to disambiguate multiple articles by that name. Actually, I just realized that your move was not within WP:NAME anyway because a disambiguation in the article name should be avoided if there is no other subject by that name. I have moved it back to Sacred Heart Primary School thus. You can move it to the proper disambiguation title (Sacred Heart Primary School (Kew), see Naming conventions (schools) and NAME) if more articles about schools sharing this name have been created. In that case Sacred Heart Primary School should be turned into a disambiguation page. But as long as there is no reason to disambiguate, there is no reason to make the article name more complicated than needed. Regards  So Why  07:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Understand what you're stating, but the problem is that there are many links on wikipedia that point to that one article, due to the original authors not pre-disambiguating (if that makes sense). Happy you leave it as it is. I'm just trying to avoid future confusion.


 * --ric_man (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's because WP:NAME compels us to not pre-disambiguate as long as there is no other topic by the same name. In such cases, like you point out, it would be needed to create articles for those links not correctly pointing to the right school (or make them disambig red links by using something like Sacred Heart Primary School ). Regards  So Why  13:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you. I too hope you will soon be able to assist us all with your own mop :-)  So Why  08:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

ACMA
Hi there.

You recently locked the ACMA webpage citing disruption to prove a point. That isn't what has happened here. One user has quoted an article from a very unreputable site ( the site is a company that produces glossy magazines, they aren't journalistic ) because it suits his personal views. If you read the references included on the page itself you will see the issue is far more involved than that. I have added a summary for you to read on the talk page if you care.

There is politics here, but it is on the side of the people that want to keep the actions of the ACMA secret. I encourage you to read up on the issue at least a little, and then reconsider your decision. I'm following this issue with the ACMA and Censorship quite extensively, and would be happy to provide you with *reliable* references from mainstream news to back up anything you have questions over. Please reconsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonwins (talk • contribs) 09:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but Wikipedia is not a place to repeat what newspapers have reported or to try and add links solely to trip an organisation like the ACMA into making mistakes. The edits were not motivated to improve the article but to create a disruption by making edits that will be picked up by third-party sources or to influence some third party to change their behaviour. This is not what Wikipedia is here for. I will not unprotect an article where anon editors keep making the same, news-reported disruptive edits depite being reverted by multiple editors. If you want to improve the page, you can do so by discussing on the talk page but protection is needed to stop the current and expected influx of vandalism due to the news reports. Regards  So Why  09:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * anon editors? I counted 7, only two of whom were IP users. ( i'm counting myself as one of those IP users as i registered in the middle. ).  It's not trying to trip them into making mistakes.  I don't think you quite understand what they do.  They do not censor the internet currently.  They provide a list which is used voluntarily by parents on a childs computer.  They add all sorts of content to the list, from the extremely perverse, to anything that is not suitable for under 15s.  That fact is far from clear on their page.  The only way to really make it clear is to include examples of the content they think is not safe for children. That would have been done ages ago, however they also keep their activities secret.  Mainstream news picked up on one example and this is the first ever.  It's pretty news worthy.  Especially considering that there is currently talk here to have that list enforced on all ISPs, mandatory for all users.  People dont' realise they categorise stuff as MA15+, and are being mislead into thinking they only block child porn.  It's unfortunate that the glossy magazine website made a story pretending ulterior motives.  Do you really think an example of a site that is a mundane anti-abortion page is not worthy of including as an example of the work they do? --Reasonwins (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am thinking that Wikipedia should not make the news, it should report it. Adding those links leads to news outlets reporting on Wikipedia, thus making Wikipedia the source of the news. They are not necessary for the text and thus should not be included without consensus to do so. I do not care what ACMA does or does not, the links are likely to be the source of news articles and readding them after multiple reverts is disruptive. Regards  So Why  09:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, wikipedia *is* reporting the news. The URL is directly quoted in two references, and the issue itself is quoted in about 6.  I'm of the opinion that wikipedia shouldn't censor important information that is very relevant to an articles page, simply because it may make news. The only nations that have mandatory internet censorship are the likes of China etc, and wikipedia regularly *makes* news there.  Does that mean articles should be censored because content risks it?  I can see you're not going to be swayed.  I'll just finish by saying this is the only, the absolute only example given of what that organisation does with their filtered feeds.  It's extremely relevant to their page, and it is also very well referenced in recent news stories.  To chose not to add it merely because it may make news, is well, frankly, a bit mind-boggling to me.  Thanks for your time.  --Reasonwins (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So you are an inclusionist, but only when it doesn't involve actual links to real information? And a deletionist when it suits you? ;-) Leo (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Being an inclusionist does not mean I have to allow disruptive edits to be included. I have no preference on the topic itself, my actions are purely to stop disruption. Regards  So Why  09:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked
I have an account but normally edits with my IP. Recently I was involved in a somehow awkward misunderstanding and my IP was blocked for vandalism. May I ask you to kindly assist in this matter and review my unblock request? I understand it is violates Wikipedia policy to circumvent a block, but I really hope to resolve this misunderstanding quickly and I found you to be an active administrator. Thanks a lot. Naur (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I do not want to undo another admin's decision without their input. I have requested the blocking administrator to give his reasoning before deciding further. Regards  So Why  09:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks anyway. Naur (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The admin VirtualSteve responded, I responded to him (using my IP) and he failed to respond again.
 * I also realized that VirtualSteve appeared to be very closely related with Enigmaman, who I was in dispute with. In fact, he co-nominated Enigmaman for two RFAs, both of which failed. I'll happily have any other admin block me if they feel it is right to do so (and if indeed another admin agrees that I deserve to be blocked, I'll stop using this account too). But - and I'm not doubting VS's integrity - I believe an admin blocking someone who was in dispute with a close friend is highly inappropriate. Naur (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I respect your decision to decline my unblock request. However, I am still confused as to why I was blocked in the first place, and I must kindly ask you to explain it to me. If my edits were not vandalism, and if I attempted to discuss them with users who disagreed, and if I stopped making such edits - then clearly I am no longer "disruptive". Why would I be blocked? Naur (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Because you reverted those edits who reverted you, although you knew that your changes were controversial. An editor who know what Huggle should or should not be used for should also be aware that using Huggle incorrectly does not make the revert less a revert, thus restoring the edit is essentially revert-warring. You removed ratings from a large number of articles although you must have known that this was against consensus. The block was placed to stop you from doing that and while it was not clear cut vandalism, it did deal with the disruption itself. I invite you to show that you will not make such edits anymore after the block expires but the block itself was justifiable and did not violate WP:BLOCK. Regards  So Why  10:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I made reverts in certain cases where the user did not note his disagreement with me. He did not explain his rationale for reverting other edits which are completely irrelevant to the topic in question, such as my addition of sales numbers in Nine Inch Nails discography. Since he reverted all of my edits quickly, I believe that he may have made a mistake in reverting those edits.
 * I also made a revert, once, in the The Downward Spiral article. It was his first revert, and the first one I noticed. I made a revert with the assumption that he made a simple mistake. I did not make any other reverts otherwise.
 * There was no consensus as far as I know regarding addition or removal of album reviews.
 * Given my patient explanation and discussion afterwards, it is clear that I did not have the intent to disrupt Wikipedia. Naur (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a broad consensus, for example regarding allmusic. But that's content discussions, I do not want to make. You made a series of edits you should have known to be disrupting (or at least to be seen as such), like removing fact-tags, calling Enigmaman's edits "abuse" (and opening an WP:AN discussion against him), removing valid notable reliable sources like Pitchfork Media etc. Yes, you will probably not see them as such, but you have to admit that you are not a neutral third party to assess the quality of your editing. I am and I agree that it was disrupting and that you should have stopped very soon because you apparently know all relevant policies. I agreed that some warnings were incorrect and mal-worded but for example did not warn you for replacing "bias" but for removing fact. As such, I think the block was justified in light of your editing style (although, as I said, not for vandalism per se). Regards  So  Why  11:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, my edits before the AN may have been inappropriate, and if I failed to stop given continuous warning, I agree that I should be blocked. But I not only stopped, I participated actively in discussion to try to explain my point of view. I concede - I am not a neutral third party to assess my own edits. But haven't I demonstrated all intent to stop and discuss? Why is the block - which was given after I stopped editing mainspace articles for a while - even necessary? Perhaps I should not have opened the AN, but I was seeking administration attention to hope to resolve the misunderstanding. I only opened the AN after User:Enigmaman deleted my comment on his talk page, and deleted my comment on another user's talk page as well. How is that justified then? Naur (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Because administrator's are tasked to estimate whether the editor in question will continue the behaviour or whether they really stopped. VirtualSteve estimated that you might start again any time and thus blocked you to prevent that. I have reviewed his decision and while the wording was not correct, the decision itself was within the discretion he can legitimately exercise per WP:BLOCK. I understand that you are disagreeing with the decision made but further discussion will not change that it was within VirtualSteve's discretion to perform it and it was not in violation of our policies. As such, I will not unblock you. Regards  So Why  11:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft Semblio
Due to edit conflict, I found it simplest to just copy-paste my content over yours. Hope you don't mind. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not at all, I'm glad to see you expanded it :-)  So Why  12:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Criterion
I reviewed what is considered non-criterion. Thank you for the heads-up. I will keep this in mind in the future. I'm trying to do my best, so don't be too harsh :3 <u style="color:#66FFFF;">-Axmann8  ( Talk )  12:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Dont's worry, I'm not being harsh (yet ). That was just for your information so you can avoid mistakes in the future. Regards  So Why  12:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Are these blatant advertising (CSD 11)?
Came across Zeus for Windows and Agent SVN while new page patrolling. I couldn't find independent reviews via Google, though there were lots of trialware download sites. Should the original author be encouraged to show notability, or are these so blatant that they should be speedied? I'd appreciate your advice - Pointillist (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * They are both not blatant advertising, they are quite neutrally worded and are not promoting their subjects. Remember, G11 is for those pages, that only serve to promote their subject, not for those who might serve promotional purposes through the fact they exist (for example because a software with an Wikipedia article may imply a higher status). To make a simple example: "Buy the super software that can do everything for only $999 at www.fakeurl.com!!!" is a G11 - "X is a software for Microsoft Windows with the features a, b and c." is not a G11.
 * That puts it very clearly about G11 - thanks for taking the trouble to explain. - Pointillist (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If they are non-notable, G11 does not cover that. In fact, no speedy criterion does and you will have to use WP:PROD or WP:AFD if you want to get them deleted (but of course requesting an improvement from the author regarding reliable sources to establish notability should be preferred). Do not make the mistake in tagging such pages for G11 (completely fails it) or A7 (not covered by that criterion) - if you ever considered adminship, this would then be your death sentence (because people like me would mercilessly oppose you for that ). I'm glad you asked first and I hope my response helped you. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask them. Regards  So Why  17:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't want them deleted, but just drive-by tagging them for WP:N felt like I was taking the easy way out. Having done a good faith search for WP:RS I'll go back and add .  Please don't get the wrong impression, I'm actually more of an inclusionist, but I'm doing new page patrols to get wider experience. Having been editing here for ~18 months I had never PRODded before, let alone tagged for CSD. It has been quite an eye-opener.... - Pointillist (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Don't worry, I have not got a wrong impression, rather quite a good one due to the fact that you decided to ask someone knowledgeable (i.e. me in this case) before venturing into an area that you have no experience with. Just remember, CSD is a very strict set of rules that can only be used when all requirements are fulfilled. They were created to clean the project from pages and articles where having a deletion discussion would be an unnecessary waste of time, e.g. where there is no reason to believe in possible notability in any way, where the page only serves to attack or to promote, where copyright was violated or when test or vandalism needs to be cleaned up. Each criterion specifies a certain set of articles were deletion discussion is probably unneeded and where broad consensus agreed that this is almost always the case — which is why A7 for example does not cover software or movies - because there is no consensus to include them within that criterion.
 * And don't worry about missing knowledge, I've been with this project for almost 5 years and I picked up most of my skills shortly before and after my RFA, so we all live and learn, don't worry. If you stumble across more things you are not sure about, just come back here and ask. Happy editing and happy patrolling. Regards  So Why  21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto... I wish more people would seek out help/advice and get it right than do it wrong!! IMO, SoWhy is one of the admins you can trust on this subject too.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment, I'm Spartacus! :-)  So Why  10:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Decline of speedy tagging for Waskita Karya
Hey SoWhy - I just wanted to check in with you about a speedy deletion decline here. You turned a copyvio article into a good stub, which is awesome, but I did want to mention (since you said "check Google news" in the edit summary) that I believe my tagging was nonetheless correct. A purely copyright violation article with no non-infringing content, even about a notable subject, can still be deleted under g12. Of course making a stub from scratch, as you did, is probably preferable - but I just wanted to make sure you didn't think this was a mistake on my end. Thanks very much for the good work on this. :)  Flying Toaster  16:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No such implication was meant. I added this to avoid a A7 tagging of the now created stub (hence I added "company is probably notable") because it shows (hopefully) that I considered alternative SD criteria when declining and that my decline was against all of them, not only G12. Your tagging was correct although you could have cut it down to stub instead yourself. Regards  So Why  17:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And for anybody watching, people who edit articles that could be speedily deleted and saved, often garner points when it comes to RfA's... It looks really good when you can show articles that you rescued---especially if you don't have much article building experience elsewhere. To me, a rescued article is just as important/impressive as a GA.  If not more so, a rescue will send a positive message to a new user that the community is here to help them succeed.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * True beans, Spartacus. The look of awe and love from a new user who's had their gibberish respectably wikified is enough to bring a tear to the eyes of Chuck Norris, thus curing cancer.  Flying  Toaster  23:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Little Fyodor
I see this article has been restored. Would you mind adding something to the talk page about the restoration and the rationale behind it? Particularly the improvements you saw over previous versions. --Rtphokie (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, there are good sources on this article. The articles from Westword were published in a local paper and are much longer than trivial mentions. I've also added record reviews from a source that has been used in other wiki articles for similar purposes. I'm confident that it'll stand up to another AFD, if this is what you wish to pursue. riffic (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My restore was procedural per 's judgment at User talk:Fuhghettaboutit. I didn't want to delete a page another admin already judged to be fine. Please talk to him about it. Regards  So Why  09:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read that thread, what is your opinion on the article?--Rtphokie (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On first look, personally I'd say it's fine. It meets WP:MUSIC with multiple non-trivial reliable source mentions. Regards  So Why  12:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Genova & Dimitrov
Sorry, I just realised that this article was create-protected. Had I realised I would have approached you first. Could you take a look and see if your okay with this article now? It does seem to be well sourced and I don't believe it is a copyright violation now. Admittedly it is not written very neutrally yet though. If you have any doubts I'll move it back into project space whence it came and we can discuss further. Cheers, &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The protection was to prevent further copyright violations, nothing more. So I don't mind you recreating it per AFC. I'm happy you decided to ask me - although not necessary, it's nice to see that you care about such things. You are doing a fine job. Regards  So Why  10:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I think you're doing a pretty fine job too :) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I thrive on such compliments .  So Why  20:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick question
Hey SoWhy. As you're so familiar with CSD, could you review Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_18 and let me know if you think my deletion was crazy? Thanks! –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  13:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Crazy is the wrong word, although I have to say it was probably a mistake. Opinions are clearly divided as to how far G11 reaches, but I think it should never be applied if the article can serve another purpose other than promotion of its subject (hence "(...) exclusively promote some entity (...)"). In this case I think it was a clear COI situation and of dubious notability, but I'd have declined a speedy request for that article. That said, I have commented in that way on the DRV. You might want to restore it yourself but I have no idea if that is allowed once the DRV has been started. In any way, don't worry too much about it. We all make mistakes and you are one of the best admins imho. Regards  So Why  14:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the response. I've restored the article and re-opened the AfD. Thanks again for the help, –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  15:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are always welcome. Glad I could help. Regards  So Why  16:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:SMSpivey deletion/restoration
Hi, I've been off Wikipedia for about a week and saw that my userpage was deleted and then restored. Could you please explain what happened as I must have missed all the action? Thanks! SMSpivey (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I got an email request that someone accidentally left a private URL when leaving you a message. I removed the revision containing this URL from public view and that can only be done by deleting the page and then restoring all revisions except one. Do not worry, no information except the URL was removed from the page history. Regards  So Why  09:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

CAMeLEAN/PM
Hi Dude,

Thanks a lot on helping me with my page. I edited the page to have richer content and more discription on what the software is. It would really appreciated and helpful if you could please spend some time out of you busy schedule and let me know of what the corrections i need to do. I am adding more details for which i would need some more time. Your help would be appreciated.

Thanks .....

Rohitsmallya (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First off: Remove all &reg; or &copy; or similar signs. Such characters are not accepted to denote trademarks and similar. Then, read up on neutral point of view and advertising and remove or rewrite all sentences that are promotional and/or expressing an opinion (like "has a rich toolset that enables alignment of project execution with corporate objectives"). Lastly, you need to provide reliable source that allow to verify the software's notability. Your first article gives a lot of tips to improve and write a good article. Regards  So Why  14:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the inputs. I have removed the &reg; or &copy from the page. Based on your suggestion i will read into the articles and mentioned. And will make it into a neutral document.Will update you once i do the same. Thanks once again in taking time and reviewing the article and giving the suggestions. Thanks & Regards,Rohitsmallya (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I made a few more chages based on the article- Your first article. Please review the article and let me know the changes to made, if any. To enable me work and update it. Thanks for you cooperation and help in adding this article. Thanks & Regards, Rohitsmallya (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it still reads like a marketing brochure rather than an encyclopedia article. You might want to read other software related articles and notice that they use different language and style overall. Regards  So Why  10:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
I made it! Thanks for your co-nom and support :) -- Ged UK  15:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, nice one! Better than mine . Remember, jump into the admin's reading list first and if you need any help with the buttons, just ask.  So Why  15:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, i'm reading it now (and have been for the last few days to be honest, but it's different with the buttons actually available now!)-- Ged UK  15:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

St. Thomas of Villanova Church
You declined a speedy on this one on the grounds that A7 does not apply to churches. I've decided to send it to AfD to "establish jurisprudence" on whether a church is a group of people (in which case A7 would apply) or whether we have to consider also the building, if any is mentioned, which the congregation uses for its Sunday services. Your comments are welcome. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 19:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think a church can ever be considered a group of people, they are either buildings or places and both are not covered by A7 (and the latter are considered notable by default). I have a distant memory (although I may be wrong) that churches are usually not covered by A7. I don't think AFD is the place to clarify this question though, you might want to take it to WT:CSD. Regards  So Why  20:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So if I understand correctly, the Evangelical Free Church of America is a building? --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 20:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, no, of course not. Sorry, if that was unclear, that's the problem that "church" can refer to buildings and organisations alike. I meant when it's not or not only about a group but also about a building with that name. The article this is about "Catholic parish" which refers to a geographic or administrative unit within a church, not about a group. As far as my knowledge of Catholicism goes (and that#s not far, despite living in Bavaria), a parish is not simply a group of people but such an administrative unit and thus not covered by A7's group definition. Of course, if it claims to by a Catholic parish, then the notability of the Roman Catholic Church indicates notability anyway. Regards  So Why  20:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I did start the discussion. There are many Christian denominations that use the word "church" in reference to a congregation that has nothing to do with the building it uses for its services (I once belonged to a church that actually didn't have one), and even the Roman Catholic Church will tell you that the parish is a group of people first and foremost, and that an "administrative division" is set up only to reflect that. The RCC actually recognizes that it has no control over which congregation a certain individual will attend if he so chooses. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 20:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good for you. I'm interested to see what comes from it, we all live and learn after all. Your knowledge of churches is probably more extensive than mine, so I will not try to dispute it. I'm keen to see where this leads, so thanks for investigating in that area. Regards  So Why  21:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia‎
I think that there is some kind of edit warring on this page. Some users change the encyclopedic term "partially recognised" to forumish "minimally recognised" or "little-recognised". Can you protect this page?--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think protection is needed, those changes are mostly by who should know not to edit-war and can be reported to WP:ANEW if he does. Regards  So  Why  16:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)