User talk:SoWhy/Archive 13

Resources on demand
despite all my years as an admin I don't think I've ever closed an AFD. What do I need to do? jimfbleak (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions for future AFDs. You can also use User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD, which automates all that quite nicely. In this case, closed the AFD now for yo, so you don't have to do anything. Regards  So  Why  05:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Request
I want you to relocate "your questions" and following answers from other editors to your vote! or discussion lot or talk page under "your name" because those are not directly related to my answer. I do not want to draw unnecessary attentions to "my vote" with a short rationale. Thanks.--Caspian blue 09:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I have done so. Regards  So Why  09:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Caspian blue 09:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

why my page 'Pashudhan is deleted'
Dear Sir, Please tell me why my article is deleted and whether I can resubmit it making necessary changes?

Regards Smitadas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.146.145 (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It was deleted because it served solely to promote its subject in a highly subjective tone. You can re-submit your article if you rewrite the text to be free of any words that serve to promote the subject or make non-neutral observations. Before you do, you might want to read the following helpful pages: Your first article, Conflict of interest, Neutral point of view and Spam. Regards  So Why  10:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Bank for Internationl Ideas
To address your point why other people think it is important - I have enclosed information that speaks of the importance of the Bank for International Ideas - this person is the Associate Vice President,for Sustainable Economies Centers of Innovation at the United States Institute of Peace.

the following is his comments:

Thanks for sharing a very interesting concept, which combines the intellectual core of sustainable economic development and innovative use of IT. You are absolutely correct in identifying a critical gap in a number of economic development initiatives in recent years --- namely the lack of a coordinated effort to foster and sustain creativity.

The Institute is definitely interested in innovative proposals like yours.

Raymond Gilpin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bankleonard (talk • contribs) 03:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Pro Evolution Soccer 2010
Could you unsalt Pro Evolution Soccer 2010. The game is confirmed for real. Here is one link--SkyWalker (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅. Good luck creating that article. Regards  So Why  15:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks.--SkyWalker (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Tagging Identity (album) for deletion
I understand your decision to not delete the article and appreciate the message you left on my talk page. The reason I requested a speedy deletion is that the group Zee (band) has redirected back to the album for the past seven months. Aspects (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand. I just wanted to point out that even if the band has not its own article, the album itself might be notable. In this case one of the artists is clearly notable and so notability for the album is indicated. Remember, A9 is an extension of A7 and thus the same low standards apply (even lower with the "artist must not have an article"-part). Regards  So Why  17:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

CSD review
Hi SoWhy. I regularly notice your comments at RfA on candidates' speedy-tagging records. I've been doing a fair amount of CSD tagging over the last few months, and while I've had very few declined I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind having a quick look through my taggings and letting me know if you see any problems or anything you'd disagree with. I very much respect your opinion on these and it'd be useful to have some feedback if you have the time and inclination to do so! Thanks in advance. ~ mazca  t 20:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks quite fine on the first glance. Your contributions show not a single speedy tagging in the last 4 months on a page that still exists, which means you are definitely better than most of the speedy taggers. As for those which were deleted, you made some minor mistakes there (but as they were deleted, so did the admins). Unfortunately you cannot review them anymore, but European_Swat_Division for example was apparently a clan article, which would have been an A7, not a G11. Same goes for BB Clan and My Office Internet and Business Centre. Generally speaking, be careful with G11 and use A7 whenever possible. G11 is, to quote WilyD, only applicable, if after cutting away all the spam you end up with an empty page. Alex heroux had bizarre text but was most likely an attack page or vandalism, not nonsense. Other than that, a random look through your deleted contribs showed no major mistakes. Those I mentioned were common mistakes which you can easily avoid (read up on common mistakes at WP:10CSD). I'm happy to see you use PROD already and do not tag everything as speedy. Hope that helps. Regards  So Why  20:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I recall thinking about several of those and whether to go for G11 or A7 - they were both promotional and didn't assert significance. But you're right that A7 is generally the better one to go for if there's ambiguity there, i'll bear that in mind. Thanks very much for your time! ~ mazca  t 21:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Always happy to be of assistance. If you need further help, please feel free to ask. Regards  So Why  21:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Manmohan Singh
Hello,

I requested Protection of the Manmohan Singh page, and you suggested I go to dispute resolution. I have no dispute with any other users, as I have never edited that page previously. It has just been brought to my attention by another editor that people involved in the political parties in India have been editing spreading propaganda about their, and the opposing party in the article. As the election in on-going, it is just getting worse and worse. I do not see how dispute Resolution would resolve anything. Do you have any other advice?--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is that only two editors seemed active in reverting each other. If you are not involved, you can warn those editors not to revert-war and report them for edit-warring at WP:ANEW if they continue. Protection was not an option because it's to be used only if blocking individual editors is not a feasible option. Regards  So Why  20:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Spammer
Can you please watch ? I have to leave NOW and can't watch / block until much later this evening, if not tomorrow. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry, you wrote when I was already gone to bed (I live UTC+2, so it was 11:30 pm here). Seems like they made no more trouble though. Regards  So Why  15:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Doing a Cunningham
Hello - Just a quick post to ask about the deletion of this phrase as a 'blatant hoax' - this is a phrase that is in common usage in the North West of the UK and was surprised by it's deletion as a hoax. I am trying to find other sources for this that back up / use this phrase - if I manage to find these will this be enough? I might be doing something wrong as this is the first post I have done so I may not be doing all I should do but I have noticed other idioms on here - is it because this is a rural saying? It makes me hesitant to put up other phrases in case the same happens to them.


 * First of all, please sign posts on talk pages like this one with ~ . Then: Wiktionary is the place for phrases with no cultural impact, you should add your idioms there. If the phrase really exists, I am sorry for the deletion. But I expect that even a rural idiom that is common usage in parts of the UK to be used somewhere on the web - yet Google finds no hits whatsoever. This lead me to believe that such a phrase does not exist and may even be a personal attack. So, if that was a mistake, sorry for it. I suggest you find sources to back it up but consider adding it at Wiktionary instead, where it will probably end up anyway. Regards  So Why  15:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for that information and apologies for not signing off properly. I have now found a link from “Cassell’s Dictionary of Slang” by Jonathon Green (Wellington House, London, 1998). Page 300, which refers to the name cunningham - it says this: cunningham or mr cunningham -- Late 18th century. A fool or gullible person. An ironic pun on Standard English (SE) cunning + SE -ham, a suffix meaning place - this is the first reply to my findings and I am hoping to gain more replies with further sources. 90.195.141.88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC).

RE: Suggested as an admin candidate
Hey dude, long time no see. I've replied at my talk page :) Hope you're doing alright with the mop! — Cyclonenim | Chat 23:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear you're doing well. The threads of relevance are here, here and here. I don't know where the ANI thread is, but it doesn't cover much more than was said on those pages. Essentially, I got too worked up over users being incivil and made some comments I shouldn't have done. I'll post this on my talk page, too, to ensure everyone can have a good look when they're reviewing. Cheers. — Cyclonenim | Chat 09:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes. I remember that discussion actually. I quite understand your comments on that issue and if that is the only problem you are worried about, I think others will see it the same way. After all, most of us are unable to react perfectly calm when some people try to insert their personal interpretation of "neutral wording" into articles, for sure after they were told that others are disagreeing with the alleged neutrality of those edits and especially when their "arguments" start consisting of personal attacks. But those threads also show that you have understood that both editors, ParaGreen13 and CadenS, where essentially baiting you to react just that way. And your later comments show that you made mistakes and are willing to calm down. Nobody is perfect after all and more important than to be completely calm in every situation (there are only very few editors who are able to do that, admins and users alike) if to be able to admit that you made mistakes and to learn to avoid those in the future. I think you did that fine. So if you like, I'll review you for adminship when I come home this evening. I'm not the most experienced person to do that (only co-nommed two people (but both passed^^)) but if I'm Balloonman! does the same, it should give you a pretty good idea of whether you should run or not. Regards  So Why  09:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your view, it's helped calm my concerns :) I'd be thrilled if you'd review me when you get home, 'cause that combined with I'm Spartacus! review will give me a good idea of when to run :) Cheers. — Cyclonenim | Chat 10:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked your stats and went random through your contribs. From what I can see, the only really problem you have is the dispute you mentioned above, i.e. that you have the very human tendency to overreact a bit when faced with editors who are exhibiting traits that might be annoying. But I think you may have learned from that encounter. If I may suggest something, you may want to be more careful when adding comments in heated debates. If you manage to do so, you will probably never make such comments again.
 * As for the question, whether you should run for adminship, I think you are ready to run now seeing that I could not find any major problems. I look forward to hear BM's review and conclusion but I'd be very surprised if he came to a (radically) different conclusion than I did. If you decide to run, I'd offer to nominate you. Regards  So Why  18:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strangely enough you're probably the 4th or 5th editor to offer haha, but I think my coaches ( and ) should have the main roles as nominators. I'd be honoured if you would be a third nom though, but I definitely wouldn't go above that as it's a bit controversial to have more than three :) Thanks for your kind words and effort. I'm curious, do you have email enabled? If so I'll drop you a line there before I apply. Cheers. — Cyclonenim | Chat 19:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have to, I just wanted to offer it in case you'd like it. It's your RFA after all :-)
 * Yes I do. Feel free to mail me any time. Regards  So Why  19:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!
On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Tagging for speedy deletion
Apologies for my poor CSD tagging. Previously I've used Twinkle for speedy deletions, giving a list of all the criteria to choose from. For some reason I decided to do it from memory today and ended up, as you well pointed out, using completely the wrong tag. At least now I've got reason to remember that I need that guide. Thanks for pointing it out, I really appreciate it. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 12:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. If you need further assistance in that area, feel free to ask me. Regards  So Why  13:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleting redirects
Hi, SoWhy. I see that you deleted the redirect at 2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who). I thought that it was standard practice to retain redirects that originate from page moves, especially when there is a related AfD under that title. Am I misreading "Reasons for not deleting" #1 at WP:RFD? I'm fairly strongly inclusionist on redirects — they're very cheap, and they do no harm. But I've seen other admins clear out redirects that I'd consider potentially useful. What's the reasoning here? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops — I just saw the listing at RfD. I'll take it up there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct, although I think it's much easier to edit the AFD to reflect on that move than to keep an redirect which is only useful in that context, i.e. to link from the AFD (because noone will ever search for that title). But, as usual, I am fine if you chose to restore it. Because if you think it might be useful, there is no reason to keep it deleted. After all, as you say, redirects are cheap. Regards  So Why  10:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, upon reflection I suppose that as long as it's possible to get to and from the AfD and the article, it doesn't really matter that much. I was mainly curious about what the standard for such cases is these days, because I don't spend much time at RfD.  I'm OK recreating the redirect, but I'm not sure what to do at WP:RFD, since the discussion is officially closed and it might look like I was acting out of consensus. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I used speedy criteria, so it was not a RFD consensus. I do think the recreation would be possible but I do not think it wise. From what RTD said at various points, I think 2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who) would better serve as the article name for the episodes after The Waters of Mars, as RTD stated that Waters of Mars and the 2-part finale are not a 3-part episode. Regards  So Why  19:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The AfD now clearly refelcts the move, so this redirect serves no purpose at all, and should be redeleted. Same goes for 2008 Christmas special (Doctor Who). While Josiah states that the link was one of the most searched for in 2008, it has zero searches in 2009. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 19:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with SoWhy that the title 2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who) should be used for the two-parter following "The Waters of Mars"; that's why it currently points to List of Doctor Who serials . Also, we don't have any way of knowing whether there are old incoming links from the web at large, made when the page was at that title.  In general, I feel that if a page is moved after discussion, the old title should be kept as a redirect.  It does no harm, and may do good. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Christian Bale
FYI. rootology ( C )( T ) 15:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I took care of it. Regards  So Why  18:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears the same disruption at the article started up quite soon after you lifted the protection:,. Cirt (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah well, we can always re-protect it. But if only IPs do it, it can be semi'd if needed. I'll watchlist it. Regards  So Why  12:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay sounds good. Cirt (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the headsup btw, I appreciate it :-)  So Why  12:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. Cirt (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA
Hey SoWhy. Just letting you know I've withdrawn per some very good concerns raised by. I now do not feel ready at this point in time. Thanks for fighting so hard in my corner, though, it meant a lot. Hope to see you around :) — Cyclonenim | Chat 12:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sad to hear this, you would have made a great admin. I hope you can learn from those (very few) valid concerns and will return to RFA in a few months time. Please do not stop working on articles completely though, that would be stupid, seeing as how good you are doing that. Learning about policy and XFD does not mean one has to stop contributing in other areas. Good luck with that! Regards  So Why  12:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it would only be a temporary halt to article work until I gain the tools. I might find a little time here and there but I think it's worth concentrating particularly on XfD and CSD. — Cyclonenim | Chat 12:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be a bad idea though, you will get opposes like "only did it to get the tools", "wants the tools too badly" and "does not do enough article work". You should not do something to get the mop but because you genuinely want to improve your knowledge. And you should not do anything exclusively but mix it with the other work. Regards  So Why  12:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Very true, I agree, but it also feels like I'm going to have to jump through certain hoops before being able to get the tools to help improve the encyclopaedia with them. I'll just take things slowly, there's no rush, and keep up with a wide variety of work as you've suggested. — Cyclonenim | Chat 17:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 13 April 2009 ==


 * License update: Licensing vote begins
 * News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
 * Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
 * 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

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

BS

 * You are welcome. I know that things often get heated in these debates but 3RR limits everyone alike to stop the disruption that reverting forth and back causes. Sorry to template you with that, I would have prefered a more personal note but I am currently quite busy sorting through RFPP and then checking CAT:CSD which amassed a huge backlog. Hope the situation calms down at the Priemevil article. Regards  So Why  06:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's no problem at all; a template got the message across just as well as a personal note would have. I certainly hope that the situation calms down as well. I tried to open a discussion but the IP involved was quite beligerant, saying something to the effect of "I don't really care about it but since you've reverted me I'll turn this into a war and win." Eck, I hate it when they do that. Anyway, thanks again and I hope that you manage to get through that backlog! MelicansMatkin (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Does NOT indicate
A7: You may disagree with what CSD says, but the criteria is that the article indicates that the subject is "important or significant", not that it might be notable/important/significant in general, but that it indicates or makes some assertion that it is notable in the article itself. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am quite familar with A7, thank you very much (wrote an essay about it this morning). Policy also clearly states that "[...] Deletion is not required if a page meets these criteria [...]". An admin can decline any speedy request even if it meets the criteria and this is what I have done. I declined your request specifically because after an admin has made a decision, nobody should retag it for speedy deletion, else it constitutes attempted forum shopping (exceptions are valid G10 and G12 taggings that the previous admin had not considered). Regards  So  Why  10:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And I could go write an essay about it right now, but essays mean nothing. If you want to change what the criteria are, go to the talk page and get consensus. But just because you feel differently about CSD criteria than what the CSD policy that was developed by consensus, does not mean a whole lot. And yes, its not required, BUT when YOU decide YOU need to USE caps!!! and other screaming on Wikipedia, it tends to piss people off, especially when it comes from admins who should know better. And, no, this would not be forum shopping. If the original person who tagged it went somewhere else to have it deleted, that would be forum shopping. Now the fact that two editors independently tagged it, should tell you something. But have fun with your essays. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry that you feel this way. But if you know that CSD policy allows me to make that (binding) decision, why did you retag it in the first place? Again, I did not decline it because it was not an A7, it meets the criterion. I declined it because I thought it would be better for the project to allow this article to survive a bit because the subject might be notable. As for the forum shopping, it does meet the description of it actually: Asking multiple times at the same place is not different than asking at multiple places. Each is an attempt to get another admin to review the article and to make a different decision, thus wheel-warring the previous admin. Hence long-standing consensus is that any subsequent admin should decline a request that was previously declined, even if they disagree. Sorry for the caps btw, I chose a previously used summary from the browser's cache instead of typing it again. It was not meant as screaming or anything. Regards  So Why  10:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to delete that from your cache then, as it looks bad coming from an admin, for whatever reason (and stop with assumptions). And no, for it to be forum shopping you need to have the same person (or a meat puppet situation) for it to be forum shopping. I never saw the history of the article until you declined it (an assumption of yours), thus not concerted effort by anyone to get a new result. Next time, try adding a notability tag, as that helps people passing by, and more importantly might help the article creator get the article to where it needs to be. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I might (once I figure out how^^). As I said, nothing personal. Forum shopping can have a lot of varieties. Let's say one comes across a page they want to get speedy deleted and they notice it has been declined previously, so they decide to re-tag it, in hope some other admin deletes it. It would be admin shopping then, because the whole point of doing it is to bypass an admin's decision. I did phrase that a bit incorrectly above, sorry for that. Sometimes I slip into German grammar and sentences sound as if they meant something different. Did not want to imply that you attempted forum shopping, just that it might constitute such. As for the other assumption, yes, I did assume you read the history, because that is what anyone tagging for speedy deletion should do to see whether information was not just added/deleted by a vandal for example. You might want to do that in future to ensure such misunderstandings do not happen again and thus saving everyone involved some time. Regards  So Why  10:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Battered Suitcase
Morning! You've deleted my article for The Battered Suitcase before it could be completed. What do I need to do to restore and complete the article? I had put in a brief bit of text to hold it there, but apparently that's not acceptable. I am confused. Thanks for your help! Fawnmarie (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Fawn


 * It was deleted because the text you added did not allow anyone to understand why the subject should be considered important or significant. Remember that you need to provide reasons in the text why the subject should be considered notable using reliable sources. You might want to read our guidelines about the notability of web content. I can offer you to userfy that article in your userspace so you can work on it in peace. Regards  So Why  13:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Johansen procedure
sorry about that, at first, it was created as The Johansen procedure since I followed a link on cointegration, then I renamed it to Johansen test. I hope that page is good enough. regards. Jackzhp (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's better now but it might need a bit more tweaking so people who have no idea of the topic immediately understand what the article is about. You might want to read WP:LEAD for that. Regards  So Why  16:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

TechSkills
Hi, I was asked about assessing notability of this article, the user created it as subpage and asked me if he should post it as an article, how can I know if this article is notable enough to be included??, If you dont mind taking a look at the article here, and here is the results of google search, Thank you for your time :-) Maen. K. A. (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's probably notable but the article has other problems that should be addressed before it can be included. Mostly the problem is promotional language, especially the "Courses of study" section. The "Locations" section should be restructured to text instead of a table. As for notability, the article could do with a couple of reliable sources. A quick Google News search turns up 115 hits for the company, there should be enough sources to add more information and source it (for example on the lead investor). Regards  So Why  16:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please reinstate my IAVE page
Dear SoWhy Please reinstate my page on "IAVE" which you deleted on April 1. I am the author of the original page on the IAVE website so I don't think it counts as plagiarism to reproduce it on Wikipedia - I was hoping the new page would serve as the start of a more interactive description of the organization. I've added the GNU Free Document License to the original if that helps. Thanks very much. IAVEIRC (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC) IAVE IRC


 * I could reinstate it but it would then most likely be deleted as an article that solely serves to promote your organisation, no a result I think you want to see happen. The text you used, as it was written by yourself (see Conflict of interest), was naturally not using a neutral point of view, a key requirement of Wikipedia. Instead, I suggest you try and write a new draft (preferably in your userspace, for example at User:IAVEIRC/International Association for Volunteer Effort) not reusing content from your webpage. Instead try to write new text that is neutrally worded and uses reliable sources to verify any facts you decide to include. Your first article gives helpful tips on this subject. Regards  So Why  18:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wade Allen
Hi SoWhy - just a quick (honest, gentle) question - you declined speedy for this because he claimed to be a member of an notable association. I guess I can see your point, and I just want to confirm the rationale... csd-a7 for people says that the article fails to indicate why the subject is important. So it sounds like you are saying that claiming are part of an association (without saying that's what makes you important) is enough to prevent speedy? Reading the Academy website they have 15000 members and students can join for $25 per year. Just want to know the interpretation so I can better prod instead of CSD next time.

Thanks. JCutter (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not reviewed the membership requirements of this organisation, I just think it's possible that notability may be inherited. I doubt it very much but I prefer to decline a speedy if I cannot be 99% certain. Hence I tagged it for prod because it won't hurt us to keep it for 5 days. I know that other admins may disagree with me on this but as speedy deletion is quite a BITEy way to "welcome" people to Wikipedia, I tend to try and limit its uses if it's not a clear situation. Regards  So Why  07:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Totally understood - thanks for the confirmation.  I agree that we should bite the newbies, and had it been a generic username I would probably have tagged notability, but given that it was also an obvious autobio ... well enough said.   Now there's a brand new user removing tags on the page without fixing the problems (sock?) so will try to watch it and see what happens with the prod.   Good night.  JCutter (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Lee Chee Chuan
Just a note, I tagged the user page because it appears to be a resume. Does that count as CSDable? TallNapoleon (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, please review WP:CSD. Using Wikipedia as a webhost falls under WP:NOT but those reasons are explicitely excluded from CSD (see WP:CSD). You should use WP:MFD in those cases instead. Regards  So Why  07:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Christmas Special 2009
I written Christmas Special 2009 and I am going to change the page from Christmas Special 2009 into 2009 Christmas Special(Doctor Who) for simple reasons. I will take of the TBA that may be broadcast at New Year 2010 within 24 hrs. I Strongly suggest this page is kept. 90.197.183.50 (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Which page are you talking about exactly? 2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who)? That page was moved to The Waters of Mars. Your creation, Christmas Special 2009, consists solely of speculation and will probably be deleted at AFD, so there is no point in moving it to the correct title. Once there is any reliable information on that episode at all, we have a dozen willing editors to create that article (happened the same with Planet of the Dead). Regards  So Why  07:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ultimate Breaks and Beats
Regarding this after you (quite rightly) declined a G12 speedy of Ultimate Breaks and Beats, the mass deletion strikes me as a bit unnecessary. For one thing you deleted some material that does not seem to be a copyright violation at all (some stuff toward the end of the "article," such as it was). But also the only real problem was the first paragraph, which obviously came from here and did need to be deleted. The rest of the entry was taken from here and apparently copied directly, but really it's just a track listing. It should probably be formatted differently, but it strikes me as rather odd to cite copyright infringement on a list of songs and their artists - there's really only a couple of ways to present that kind of information.

I guess I'm tempted to undo your edit, trim down the intro to a sentence or two, and basically leave it at that (except possibly reformatting the list somewhat, I'd have to look into how to do that). This is kind of a weird entry obviously, but the reason it will be useful to people (and the reason I watchlisted it) is the full track listing for all the releases. I think we can keep that and the very brief commentary that follows. Let me know what you think - I'll check back here.

Oh and by deleting that list you are totally striking a deadly blow at the foundations of hip-hop! Shame on you, fan of indie rock! But I guess I can forgive you for that since this is just an encyclopedia. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, even the track listings, if they are copied 1:1 from other pages constitute a copyright violation. I agree that the information should not be deleted, which is why I only removed it from sight. You are invited and urged to reinstate the information (you can still find it in the history after all) and if you got some minutes, you can attempt to use tracklist for all entries (bit of work, I admit). I just advise against restoring the previous version because it would not be helpful to restore material we know was copied from another website. Even if there are only a limited number of ways to present the information, this particular one may be copyrighted. Regards  So Why  09:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, well I do understand copyright and history pages and all that, my suggestion was to slightly alter the original list. But as I look closer I note that this already seems to have happened. A lot of the entries in our article included more information than is found at the Geocites page. For example compare the beginning of the old version of the list at the article:


 * SBR 499
 * 1. She's So Divine (B. Oattes/R van Schaik (The Limit)) (from CP 721) (1982)


 * to the Geocities page


 * SBR 499
 * 1) She's so divine (B.Oattes/R van Schaik)


 * That's just really not the same thing at all, except for listing the title of the release (I guess - I don't get the "SBR 499" stuff), the song name, and the artists (and I think it's pretty damn impossible to argue that any of that info is copyrighted, or that listing it in order is copyrighted since that's the only way one would list it). I think what's happened here is that someone copied over the entire list (which is eminently reasonable - why retype the entire thing?) and then changed it a bit by adding more detailed information about most of the tracks. Maybe it needs to be changed even a bit more, but I think we're pushing copyright, way, way too far here when we largely blank an article because it took a track listing from a Geocities page (while citing it) and then altered that list somewhat.


 * Plus as I said you deleted some text (everything in the prior version after "oddities" up until "Other similar breakbeat compilations") that does not seem to be a copyvio. There's really no reason for that and I'm guessing it was done in relative haste without comparing the two web pages closely. I'm a big fan of protecting Wikipedia from copyright lawsuits and have dealt with these not-really-G12 type situations before, but the issue here was a small one and instead the article text was almost completely blanked which could have gone unnoticed given that this is an infrequently edited article. I just don't think that was the most constructive approach.


 * I don't have time to deal with this further at the moment, but I'm quite inclined to restore the lion's share of this information when I get a chance. It's not worth my time to do some elaborate Wiki track formatting, but perhaps I can think of something to make it look a little bit less like the Geocities page, even though I really don't think that's at all necessary. Of course the former intro cannot and would not be restored since that was a blatant copyvio. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I have accidentally removed more text than the copyvio source covered. I didn't realize I had. I know you are experienced, so I have not the slightest problem if you restore whatever you think is not copyvio. Apologies for any trouble caused. Regards  So Why  09:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for the quick replies. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

qmail-distribution
Why redirect to qmail? It deserves its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonas yonas (talk • contribs) 13:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No it does not. There is no reason to believe it would be notable on its own and the information can rather be added as a section to qmail. The alternative was to delete the article as no indication of meeting the guidelines for inclusion. Regards  So Why  13:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll add to qmail. Don't delete it from there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonas yonas (talk • contribs) 13:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Positives marked for "Clean Up"
Hello. I'm new to Wiki and my contribution so far has been about the P+ fanzine.

I'd like to:

a) Thank you for saving that page from deletion, after all that time to build it, that would be a bummer;

b) Ask you if you could give me some guidelines on how to "clean it". I've read the documentation about it, but it's way overwhelming for starters. Just a couple of highlights if you have the time, although I do tend to spend more time reading about it.

Thank you for your time.

V-term (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. It did not fit the speedy deletion criteria. It might still be deleted though, so you might want to add some references to establish its notability. Reliable sources, Verifiability and Citing sources should help you with that. As for the cleanup, you already did some things. Your first article gives you more information in general and Manual of style in particular. You might want to remove all commentary parts like "folding as all fanzines tend to", "we’d be pulled away" or "somehow P+ manages to convey all sorts of feelings without them". Wikipedia articles need to be written in a neutral tone without any sentences that are analytical or commenting. Regards  So Why  20:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can put on your userpage, please see User:Dylan620/Today/Happy Me Day!. And thanks for the review. :) --<font face="comic sans ms"> Dylan 620  Efforts · Toolbox 00:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And no problem of course. Hope it helped :-)  So Why  14:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
No probs, cheers :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheClashFan (talk • contribs) 01:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Regional Indoor Soccer League
SoWhy,

Just wanted to see exactly why my wiki page for the Regional Indoor Soccer League was deleted. It is a brand new league and at this point only has one online source, www.regionalindoorsoccerleague.com. Would it be best to wait on publishing the wiki until more articles exist on the league? I am new to wikipedia and apologize if something was done wrong. Could you please let me know the next step I should take in getting this published. Thanks.

Lukebabson (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a place to promote some new subject. As it's an encyclopedia, it does not publish new information but only "reports" (so to speak) on what other reliable sources have covered already. As you said yourself, there are currently no such sources and thus no way to establish notability of this league nor any reason to believe that it might meet our guidelines for inclusion. Your first article gives you an overview about what a new article should satisfy. So your next step is to wait until multiple reliable sources have covered this league in a significant way, then you can add those as sources (see Citing sources) and start a new article about the subject. But as long notability is not even possible, any new article about the subject will probably be deleted. Regards  So Why  08:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Result Group speedy deletion
Hi, please could you tell me why you deleted the article on Result Group. It was structured to follow the same layout and format as articles on all the large software companies such as SAP, Lawson etc which are on Wikipedia. No superlatives or advertizing claims were made, it was simply a statement of facts and software content. References were provided from industry related magazines proving that the company has been written about elsewhere.

The G11 criteria says that "simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." If you can tell me where the article went wrong then I can re-write more appropriately. I thought it was following the guidelines.

Thank you for your time. Aardvark1685 (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this was a borderline decision but some sections and phrases seemed only to promote the company, with detailed features for customers and words like "latest". But since this was a borderline case, I'd be happy to restore the article on your request. Regards  So Why  20:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please could you restore it and I'll re-edit to remove anything borderline. Sorry, didn't think about words like latest when writing. Thank you for your help Aardvark1685 (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅. Regards  So Why  09:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wildwater Rafting Ltd.
I came on this doing Recent Changes patrol and was about to tag it as a blatant advertisement when I saw you had declined a speedy saying "may be notable - check Google news". I have done that and don't find anything; the references in Google seem to be listings rather than independent comment. Would you reconsider? The intent is unashamedly promotional - the author says on the talk page "Working for this company i have been asked to create this page based on information already on the company's webpage" and it is indeed largely copied. Of the two independent references cited, canoekayak.com mentions the rivers but not this firm, National Geographic only mentions one of their resorts in a list of over 30 places to stay. I will take it to AfD if you like, but I think the tone of the whole article certainly brings it within the "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" definition of G11. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since it was re-declined by (who I can usually trust to tell me if I made a grave mistake^^), I'd rather suggest you go with WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Having a conflict of interest is not in itself a reason for G11. Yeah, it's probably not going to survive a PROD or AFD but I think keeping it for those few days while a deletion request runs will not be harmful given that the subject might be notable. Regards  So  Why  15:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK - taken to AfD here. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Need assistance for writing a good article
Hello there SoWhy,

I'm just one of many ordinary people who know very little about writing an article in Wikipedia. So I really need your assistance. My first article is WAAAM, and I know it’s so bad even to call it an article. I have tried to study about the policies and other thing but I found it so hard for me to understand. My other problem is that I don’t have so much time to do that myself, so I need an assistance, but I need someone who really know how to write a good article in Wikipedia, someone as master as you. So if I may ask for your favor to help me by making me a good article. I can give you as much resource as you need. I also understand that you’re also a busy man, so I will give you some compensation or donating to you for the article you made for me. Or at least could you train me to write a good article. Once again, please I desperately need your help and assistance. Thank you so much for your understanding and help. Waaamteam (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It'd love to help you but truth be told, I'm not an article writer at all. On the contrary, when I ran for adminship, I got opposes because of that. So I fear I cannot really help you other than pointing you to Your first article and other helpful places (like the help desk if you have specific questions). Sorry I cannot be of more help. Regards  So Why  17:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Waking Up In Vegas
Hello there SoWhy, we have never came in contact before but as you are an administrator, your assistance would be greatly appreciated. I took notice of your revision to Waking Up In Vegas (Katy Perry single) by moving the page to Waking Up in Vegas. Great work in doing so however, I believe that the Waking Up in Vegas article's title is formatted incorrectly. The "i" in the title should actually be capitalized. Take a look at the track listing of the album on the Apple iTunes Store or even sources like the following:


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

I've tried moving the page to the correctly formatted title "Waking Up In Vegas" however, the page has already been created + redirects to the article currently in use for the song. If you agree, could you please somehow help out by moving the article to the correctly formatted version!

child funk chat 05:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I think such a change would be against WP:MUSTARD and thus might be controversial, which is why I would not delete the other title as uncontroversial maintenance (criterion G6). I suggest you take that to Requested moves instead. Regards  So Why  09:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Little Walter
Just wanted to bring to your attention that it's possible that this is not a copyright violation. See this edit - the restorer was anonymous, but has been editing the Little Walter page for a long time. It'd be unfortunate to have to build that page again from scratch if we didn't have to, and might be worth checking into. Chubbles (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to check it out. Unfortunately, we cannot take an IP's word alone for granted on that issue. If the webpage does not attribute Wikipedia, we have not really a way to check whether they lifted the content from Wikipedia or Wikipedia lifted it from there. I removed the content to avoid copyright violation claims in case it was the latter - if the content was indeed taken from Wikipedia without attribution, it can easily be reverted back and if you can determine that this was in fact what happened, feel free to do so. Regards  So Why  11:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The page on B.B. King from the same site is a carbon-copy of the Wikipedia article (minus recent changes). So is the page for Willie Dixon. Eric Clapton? Check. Robert Johnson? Check. We're going to end up deleting most of Wikipedia's content on the blues at this pace. Chubbles (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See also at the bottom. "BIOS information mostly come from www.wikipedia.org or from the artist's website.". Being as Walter is long dead, the information did not come from his own website, as he never had one. Chubbles (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay, I have not seen that site nor the copyright disclaimer information. Thanks for pointing it out, just revert them to the prior state (maybe with a note in the edit summary). Regards  So Why  15:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

CSD decline templates
Hey there. I noted that you recently template warned someone for trying to speedy something improperly. There was a useful template that you had there. When I have done new page patrolling in the past on the front end of the backlog, I have often seen CSD templates misused, and I think that your informative templates would be an easy way to get the message across that CSD tagging is a big deal and ought to be done properly. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 13:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I have written such a template (i.e. uw-csd), in that case I have not used a template but written the text manually. I think there might be some use in having multiple templates for those situations but I have not come around to write them (and I probably lack the English skills for that). If you have time, you might want to create some of them. Regards  So Why  14:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, perhaps manually writing them would be a better idea, though I think I'll see if I can create a more versatile template that can also be useful for writing manual notes. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 15:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Might be a good idea. Maybe using a switch: syntax where you can use the template with a certain variable and it outputs a text specific to that variable, like will create a templated message regarding errors in tagging with G11.  Good luck with that :-)  So  Why  16:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to help write/copyedit templates like this. I am also thinking of developing some templates to tell people why i've deleted their article (advertising, lack of RS, no assertion of notability etc). I'm also thinking of asking Amalthea whether it would be possible to incorporate them into twinkle somehow. -- Ged UK  06:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for this. For transparency, I blocked the IP before I noticed the request there, but due to my involvement on Nicole Scherzinger, me answering that request would be inappropriate, so I left it alone despite the block of the vandal (which was an appropriate block, as it was vandalism not a content dispute). Thank you for handling it. Acalamari 21:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. Let's hope that block is enough to keep such vandals at bay. Regards  So Why  21:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ij to Y
Seeing as you did the Dirk Kuyt move, do you think it's a good idea to move Johan Cruijff to Johan Cruyff? I think a similar solution to the Dirk Kuyt article would be the most appropriate course of action. Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅. Since you proposed the move on the talk page and noone opposed it for 6 weeks, this was the logical step, the new new name is clearly supported by WP:NAME. Regards  So Why  22:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Novels Wiki Project Template
Hey, please change |tf 2 importance= to |tf 2 importance=  in the Percy Jackson section. Thanks. Pmlinediter  Talk 11:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Regards  So Why  11:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Assistance at RFP
Pedro gave me some ideas on where I might help out on Wikipedia. I have been watching how the various pieces are connected, and after a year or so, dove into the deep end at RfA. I would like to try some basic housekeeping or research for awhile. One of Pedro's suggestions was RFP, and you appear to be a top contributor on the page. Is there any non-admin duties that I might be able to help out on? --Preceding unsigned comment 17:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not really I'm afraid. RFPP works in a way that users make requests and admins decide upon them. There is seldom other things to do. In fact, the only thing I can think about is fixing listings when people use la for other pages than articles, but that happens once or twice a day only. If you want to do some housekeeping help, you could really do so with CSD. CAT:CSD has usually at least 25-30% incorrect taggings and normal users can remove those, thus saving admins the work to decline them. And CSD is one of those things you need to prove at RFA to be good at these days so that would be good training. There exist some helpful essays to help with that, for example WP:FIELD, WP:WIHSD, WP:10CSD and WP:CA7M. Regards  So Why  17:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not looking for RfA boxes to get checked, but I am looking to help somewhere outside of the articles. I will read up on CAT:CSD and the essays, thank you.  Who would be a good POC over there to work with?  If I think its a good match, I would need someone to check my proposed tag fixes before I dive in.  --Preceding unsigned comment  17:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, didn't mean to imply that, you just mentioned RfA. As for the other question, I'd answer you that question but what's a POC?  So Why  18:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry...Point Of Contact, a duty expert who would not mind assigning me duties or going over my work. A quick glance at the page and the essays looks good.  I think I would like to pursue this.  On diving into RfA, I decided to add my 2 cents to the nominations.  Probably a little bold for a newbie, but the research involved in producing an educated comment has provided me with a world of knowledge on how things work.  --Preceding unsigned comment  18:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah! Well, I could do that if you like, two of those essays I linked were written by me and CSD is my second admin area after RFPP. But you could also ask Pedro to do that, he is really knowledgeable in that area (probably more than me, since he is an admin much longer than I am^^). As for RFA, don't worry about being bold, WP:BOLD is a guideline after all. RFA is after all an area where one can see what the community expects from its trusted users. Regards  So  Why  19:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I like, thank you. It will take me some time to go over the essays, the page policies and research the diffs.  I will get back to you and Pedro.  Please feel free to provide any other material that will help me to understand the process and nuances of tagging. On my Boldness, so far no adverse feedback.  I will continue my self assignment there as long as I have interest, feel that I am being productive and don't cause any complaints  --Preceding unsigned comment  19:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if you read all those essays, you should be ready. They should cover most mistakes that happen often. If you are willing to dive into that area, the most common mistakes should be regarding the criteria A7 and WP:G11, i.e. possibly notable material and not blatant spam tagged for deletion. Feel free to give me a list of diffs of where you removed a tag to review whenever you want. Regards  So Why  19:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The real prince
I'll just make a note that you deleted it as A7 and move on, I don't think it's much point debating which criteria is better, since the article was so unambiguously unsalvageable. But allow me to ask a completely unrelated question: How do you make that custom notification on your user talk? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Which notification are you referring to? This one?  So Why  20:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep. "Editnotice", that's the one, thanks :) <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just create an "Editnotice" subpage for the page you want that to appear on. See Editnotice as well. Regards  So Why  20:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I figured it out. Just needed a search term. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

European Union topic
Hi Why,

I noticed that you declined my suggested speedy deletion of Template:European Union topic, saying that the other templates do not provide the same functionality. To what functionality are you referring? No articles transclude this template, and it is essentially a copy-paste combination of Template:European Union candidates and Template:Members of the European Union (EU). The inclusion of "topic" in the name suggests that suffixes can be added to its links (as in Template:Europe topic), but this is not the case. Would you object if I relisted the template for deletion?

Neelix (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * T3 is stricter than that. It does not apply if the template is not providing exactly the same functionality. You say it yourself, it's not a copy of one template but a new creation from two other templates, thus not meeting the speedy criteria. I suggest you list it at WP:TFD if you want to pursue deletion. Regards  So Why  07:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Why,


 * Thanks for the clarification. I'll try to use the template properly from now on.


 * Neelix (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. Btw, my name is SoWhy, not Why ;-)  So Why  17:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

High risk templates
Could you take a look at this RFP? These templates are being transcluded onto very prominent pages, many of which are already semi-protected. I hadn't realized how fast these would become high risk templates and as usual it seems RFP is getting me nowhere. I know I could just ask someone outside RFP to protect the silly things but RFP should be a little more responsive when it comes to such templates. Tothwolf (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, all resolved :) Tothwolf (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A barnster for me!
Oooh, SoWhy, merci! It's lovely and it's shiny, thank you so much! As for having earned it. . . well, I'll try not to argue, :-) I appreciate it very much, danke, :-D  <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din \talk 18:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Scouting
The terms Scouting and Guiding in the context of a youth movement are capitalized. Please see WP:SCOUTMOS. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 21:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for that then, I had no idea there exists a special MOS for those articles. I reverted the move. Regards  So Why  21:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 21:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of SCOUTMOS either, or I wouldn't have put the db template on the redirect. Sorry to have put you in that position. I guess we both learned something. Station1 (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, it's a wiki, everything can be reversed quickly and painlessly after all  So  Why  06:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshire and Humberside Grid for Learning (and vandalism)
If you remember our conversations here and here about the range 89.207.208.nn, I said I would check on them after the block expired in April. They're at it again - one or two constructive edits but vandalism from .7, .8, .9, .12, .13 (the last three tag-teaming again on Joint). I think they need another few months off. Last time it was necessary to protect the talk pages too.

I checked further up the address range - the same authority owns them all up to .255, but I only checked up to .32. The only recent activity is by .16 (blocked 3 months on 11 Feb by LunaSantin) and .17 (blocks in Feb, Mar and today 20 Feb for 2 weeks by OverlordQ). So there's probably no need to extend the range of your block.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since .16 and .17 are already blocked individually and you have not seen any above .15 vandalizing, I put back the old 89.207.208.0/28 rangeblock with a 6 month expiry, which will block 89.207.208.1 - 89.207.208.15. Regards  So Why  20:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll make a note on my calendar to look again after 20 Oct! JohnCD (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Declined speedy on You Have the Power to Be Happy
You declined my DB-SPAM tag, saying the article doesn't promote anything. It does. It promotes a book. As the article says "This thought-provoking and inspiring book ...". It's one of the (so far) three articles that Dr. Amit Abraham has added, all promoting his own books. I've reverted your edit, I guess that's okay. Yinta ɳ 10:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is okay, sorry for the mistake. I must have overread that part. I deleted it now and I deleted the others before already. Regards  So Why  11:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. Yinta ɳ  11:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigh
Damn, thats actually what I meant to do... Thanks <font color="#800000" face="lucida handwriting">Kennedy (<font color="#800000">talk ) 11:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, good thing I caught it then  So  Why  11:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Atle Bakken
Meanwhile, I think I've made a bit of a mess of Atle Bakken. I tagged it for AfD and then found it had already been discussed there (and deleted) last week. So I added a speedy tag for recreation of deleted material (G4) instead. But now I've got a double tagged article and an open AfD discussion that is pointless. Would you mind taking a look at it and possibly use your mop? Thanks. Yinta ɳ 11:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ All mopped up, deleted the page, SALTed it and closed the AfD as speedy delete. Regards  So Why  11:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Remind me to buy you a drink should we ever meet. Yinta ɳ  11:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Drink or no drink, it's been a pleasure to help Regards  So  Why  11:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

RPP of Furby and Spongebob
'Ello. You dealt with the Furby protection request at RPP, but I don't think you noticed the Spongebob request that was tucked at the end of the message, so I've protected that one as well. Just to let you know :) -- Ged UK  12:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just noticed. Thanks for taking care of it. Regards  So Why  12:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Forty Hours
Haha, you declined my speedy.Funny everywhere I put up a speedy it gets declined and replaced with another by you or Timmeh.Well, its nice to see you active. Peace Out Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 12:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it was not a clear situation as one might think. One version of the Catholic Encyclopedia, where the text originated, is public domain, while the New Catholic Encyclopedia, where it might come from as well, is not. So it needs further investigation to determine whether there really is copyright to be violated. Regards  So Why  12:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll be investigating-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 12:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I have the book right in front of me and its pretty much the same except the first couple of lines are switched up. I would upload it but my printer doesnt upload :(.But anyway, if we can find a person with a printer that uploads and the book, that would be proof.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 12:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if you have the book and it's the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, then we can assume that the webpage you linked to in your initial tagging got it from there, can't we? As such, it would be a PD source and we can restore the previous text. Regards  So Why  12:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, It's the 1989 edition of the New Catholic Encyclopedia-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 12:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Which would make it a copyvio. But maybe the New Cath. Enc. copied it from the Old Cath. Enc.? You don't happen to have a 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia lying around to compare it to, do you?^^  So Why  12:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I do, it was crammed downstairs sorry it took so long to get it. It Uses more modern words and adding 2 paragraphs of new info.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 13:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Take your time, nobody forces you to do it after all. ;-)
 * So if the wording changes and those 2 paragraphs were reverted/removed from the article, it would be a copy of the 1913 edition? In that case, if you have the time, you might do that, thus saving the article from deletion. But it's up to you whether you want to invest the time. Regards  So Why  13:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course I will :), Im here to make Wikipedia better not come on and try to delete everything. I'll fix it and then can i take off the copyright tag? Peace Out-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 13:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok i did It and added that it is a reference for catholi encyclopedia and said it was the 1913 edition.✅ Thanks again. Peace Out-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 13:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (←) Nice work, congratulations on your time and devotion. Just a little thing you should try to take to heart: Use edit summaries for all your edits. For example, in this case you should have noted that you removed copyrighted text but the rest is public domain when doing your edits, thus making it much easier for others to understand what you did and more importantly don't tag it as copyvio again. If you have trouble remembering to use edit summaries, you can use My Preferences => Editing => Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. It's really really helpful to do. Regards  So Why  14:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do the prompt thing so I'll remember.Also, if you have the time (:P),would you mind looking at Bulbasaur? I just nominated it for FA.You can put your comments/support/objections here. Thanks again!. Peace Out-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 15:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, apparently I'm too late, it seems declined already. Sorry to read it but I think you can learn some valuable lessons from those opinions raised there and by talking to those who participated. Regards  Yhw Os  18:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

BC & SL
Can you please keep an eye on Black Clouds & Silver Linings? I don't know if it needs fully protected again, but the track lenghs are being added agian with no new reliable sources, so maybe there is something that could help? Thanks!  black ngold29  18:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but with more than 1700 pages on my watchlist, looking for such changes is nearly impossible for me. But you can always re-request protection at WP:RFPP if the editing because too disruptive to handle with reverts. Regards  Yhw Os  18:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandal move
Hi. I see you are on-line. has mischievously moved First Hawaiian Bank and its talk page to Hawain 717. I think it needs an admin to undo that? Also, if you look at his talk page, you may think this user is about ready for a block. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverted the page move. You might have done so yourself, as the prior page had no further history than that. Admins are only needed when the move tool tells you you cannot move it there. ;-)
 * One might think so but your last warning came after his last action, so we may have to AGF that they stopped. Report them to WP:AIV if you notice them again. Regards  So Why  21:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. After I messaged you I found Help:Moving a page - sorry, should have looked for that first. Another time I'll give it a try. I'll keep an eye on Pjibid and take him to AIV if he does any more. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Tagging for speedy deletion
Thanks for the comment on my talk page re: my tagging SamiYam for speedy deletion. I am aware of the A7 criteria. Please note that I did not arbitrarily tag it. I tagged it because the article did not satisfy any of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO, specifically: A separate Google search turned up nothing in addition that would demonstrate Wikipedia notability, just a lot of mostly unreliable web pages. Hence I tagged it, and I stand by that action. The Wikimmunity has determined otherwise, which is always an option. Truthanado (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) article page is tagged as needing third party sources, so can't satisfy this criterion
 * 2) no evidence of any charted single or album
 * 3) no evidence of certified gold
 * 4) no tour evidence
 * 5) only one album, needs two for this one
 * 6) single performer, so group member notability doesn't apply
 * 7) no evidence of being the most prominent member of a style
 * 8) no evidence of a music award
 * 9) no evidence of winning a music competition
 * 10) no evidence of a notable work
 * 11) no evidence of being in rotation
 * 12) no evidence of half hour or longer national broadcast


 * You seem to misunderstand the A7 criterion. A7 is not about any notability, proven or otherwise, rather about indication of importance or significance, a much lower standard. While articles that do not make such indications are usually also not notable, the reverse is not true. As such, WP:MUSICBIO is not anything an admin will take into consideration when judging whether an article meets A7 because WP:MUSICBIO is a notability guideline and A7 is not about that. A7 is only there to weed out articles that have virtually no chance of meeting the guidelines for inclusion. If there is any indication at all that they might, A7 is the wrong way. In this case, I declined it because someone who is signed to a notable label might meet them. The question whether they do or don't is for AFD. You might also want to read WP:CA7M where I tried to compile a list of common claims that usually will make an article fail A7. Regards  So Why  21:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Bodo's Bagels
I see you declined speedy on Bodo's Bagels because it was mentioned by a reliable source. Are you referring to the online magazine of the law school of UVA? By this standard, does this mean that any restaurant near any school that gets mentioned in that school's magazine will survive speedy? JCutter { talk to me }    22:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not every magazine. But that specific magazine (which has its own Wikipedia entry at Virginia Law Weekly) can be considered a potentially reliable source because it's been included in Google News, which is quite unusual for a school's magazine, don't you agree?
 * On a side note, I like your new signature, although I think it would be better without the frame around it. Regards  So Why  06:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Understood - I guess that school newspaper being included is usual.   However, I still strongly question notability of the company.   I've nominated for AfD just to see what others think.   Reading one of the blogs that comes up on google for this site I suspect there may be a few very vocal (local interest) supporters.    Appreciate your comments - I'll work on finding the right signature one of these days.       JCutter  { talk to me }    07:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My Template
I read your comments on my template. I did try it on your userpage with the preview button and it would look great. Whether you use it is up to you.

EVula asked why we need it when we have the Usercheck-full but that is very long. The one I mentioned was simply admin plus a link to your RFA.

Another template that I did create was IPsock but I can no longer edit it because it's protected. –BuickCenturyDriver 06:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No flagged revisions category up for deletion
The category associated with the no flagged revisions userbox you have placed on your user page is up for deletion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 April 23 and you are invited to share your opinions on the issue. Alansohn (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Adoption
Hey, I would love to be adopted by you. I appreciate you noticing how I've figured some things out on my own; yep, I'm definitely not the kind of person you'd be sending "Let Me Google That For You" links to. :) I just want to be more involved and to be good at editing around here. Most of what I like to do is policing spelling, grammar, policy violations, and vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrettw87 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC) And good idea on the "Re:" inclusion; I'll remember that. -Garrett W. (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Great to hear that! Then let's start with this message you left me: Whenever you leave messages for other people that are not related to previous discussion on that page, it's usual to start a new section (either with the "new section" link at the top or by using ==Section title== ) with a title that allows others to easily understand what the section is about. You will notice that I titled this section "Re: Adoption" accordingly. Second, if you leave messages that people should know that you left them (i.e. in all "talk:" namespaces and some other places, just look what others do on those pages), you should sign your posts using ~ which will result in your nickname and the current time/date (you will notice that a bot did this for you this time). You can customize that via "My preferences" as I have. See WP:SIG for details.
 * That's it for now, feel free to contact me whenever you have any questions about how things are done. You might want to advertise your new status to the world using . Regards  So Why  08:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh... the ONE time I forget to sign my message..


 * I just chose "Re:" because it started at your talk page. Usually I prefer to keep it at one place, making that superfluous.  So Why  12:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)