User talk:SoWhy/Archive 15

Scrottball
hello i see one of my friends has put up a wikipedia article about scrottball

i also see that you deleted the page for certain reasons. I know his story was vulgar and that lots of stuff was fabricated but scrottball is a real sport that we invented a while ago and now we have a large community of people that know of/play scrottball. I am asking that if we put up a legitimate scrottball page with rules styles etc that you do not take it down because it would be really cool if the world can learn about and perhaps play our sport —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.10.133 (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see the appropriate guideline, in this case Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. It explains all the reasons why such a page should not exist, even if the subject indeed exists. Regards  So Why  06:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

deleted entry
Hello! You deleted the entry I created - "11:12, 12 May 2009 SoWhy (talk | contribs) deleted "Youth and environment europe" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)" and I wanted ask why? There are many similar entries on Wikipedia about similar organisations or federations, like "European Environmental Bureau" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Environmental_Bureau, European youth forum - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Youth_Forum, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiga_Rescue_Network and more and they aren't considered as promotion or advertising, so why was my entry considered one? Thank you,

Venusnoire (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC) venusnoire


 * None of those entries use like like "our goals..." or try to actively promote the subject in question. Your article did and as such was deleted. Please review Neutral point of view, Spam and Your first article for more information on how to and how not to write an article. Regards  So Why  12:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain further...
Could you please explain why you deleted the article about Paul Holden? Yes, I know you listed WP:A7. But Notability (people) lists professions which should be considered notable, and should be exempted from discussions over whether they are notable. It explicitly exempts:

Holden is one of the judges on the United States Court of Military Commission Review.

Note, the article on one of his colleagues, Amy Bechtold, was nominated for deletion.

Could you please direct my attention to the place where the deletion of the Holden article was discussed? Geo Swan (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The content of the article was:


 * A different Holden, quite obviously. Cheers, Amalthea  03:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks.  Geo Swan (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, anytime. Amalthea  06:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for TV Tropes
An editor has asked for a deletion review of TV Tropes. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I initially posted on the admin who closed the deletion discussion, but since you show up in the deletion log I thought I should inform you as well. Thank you. Sgore (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving edit history and deletion of List of metropolitan regions by intentional homicide totals
Hi. I decided to keep improving the List of metropolitan regions by intentional homicides after getting a block over how I wanted it. Keeping it there unfinished I thought was taking unnecessary space up as well, hence wanting it deleted. Anyway, is it possible you or someone else can move the edit history from the List of metropolitan regions by intentional homicide totals to the List of metropolitan regions by intentional homicides?

Concerning the List of metropolitan regions by intentional homicide totals, the reason I wanted it deleted is I merged it with the List of metropolitan regions by intentional homicides so there was no point in keeping. I didn't know how to redirect but my understanding was there's little point in the article as it's merged (and been enhanced) since. I just want the edit history put in with the List of metropolitan regions by intentional homicides if it's not too much hassle.

Thanks. Power Society (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅. Sorry for the delay, I was on vacation. I left a redirect behind at List of metropolitan regions by intentional homicide totals, for it does not really hurt to have one for now. Regards  So Why  12:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Odie5533 (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thankspam
 FlyingToaster Barnstar Hello SoWhy! Thank you so much for your nomination in my  recent RfA , which passed with a tally of 126 / 32 / 5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust.  Flying Toaster 

As SoWhy's inofficial holiday replacement, I accept this barnstar and will place it on my (non-existent) awards page. ;) Good luck with the new buttons, Toaster! Amalthea  10:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You are most welcome. I'm glad to see this on my return today, it truly fills my heart with joy (and that makes three successful nominations by yours truly ). Have fun with the new buttons at your disposal :-)
 * And thanks to Amalthea for handling my talk page in my absence, that was very sweet of you :-) Regards  So Why  11:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome back!  Flying Toaster  11:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm still a bit dizzy, I was in NYC not 14 hours ago and 3 hours ago I was in Paris, I literally just came through the door (needless to say that I have not really got any sleep and am now trying to sort through my stuff^^). But in case you need any help, just ask :-) Regards  So Why  11:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 18 May 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Writers needed
 * Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
 * Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
 * News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Darwinius_masillae re: semi-protection
Please consider contributing to the discussion at Talk:Darwinius_masillae. Thanks. 67.100.125.164 (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

RFAR
Hi SoWhy. Pardon me for coming to you with this, but I don't believe that I have the tenure to be posting to 'crat boards outside any items which would directly involve me. I noticed that you have similar views regarding the "Wheel War", and I wondered if you might offer my thoughts to fellow admins and crats.

The entire Giano incident (the current one), seems to me to stem from the interactions of Xeno and Giano. As I understand it, and I've done some extensive reading over the last couple days, their communication revolved around edits to the article: Raine Spencer, Countess Spencer. I looked through the article history, and have not found any edits by User:FlyingToaster in that article. I also reviewed the thread on Xeno's talk page #Madame_la_Comtesse! here, once again I see no comments by or about FT, and in fact, no mention of FT up to and including the discussion of the block in any manner. My point is: The fact that someone may, or may not, have been upset due to some recent (and unrelated) event, doesn't seem to me to be a reason to pull an editor into an RFAR case of wheel wars. If I were to be having a disagreement with User:ABC on article 123. And at a later time violated a policy such as NPA or CIV while talking to User:XYZ about article 789 - then the item which should be evaluated would be my interactions with XYZ. If I wished to open a separate thread or discussion about ABC, fine, but it is a separate matter.

That's not an opinion on whether or not there should, or should not, be a RFAR on the FT RfA. That is not my place to opine one way or the other. That's also not any reflection on any editor here, I have the utmost respect for all the people involved, and truly believe that everyone is only attempting to make Wikipedia a better website. Again, I apologize for coming to you with this, and dumping it in your lap, but you were the closest thing I could find to an established editor who was relatively uninvolved. (at least from my understanding at this point in time). Feel free to correct me, or admonish me, if I am out of line, or outright wrong in either my actions or my views. Best. — Ched : ?  18:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt my word would hold much weight in this case. Those opposing FT and her adminship see me for nominating her as somehow responsible for anything she did months ago, although I have no idea why that is. And I am sorry to say but I fail to see what you expect me to do here. I personally think everyone should calm down and I have decided to keep myself from getting too involved. I suggest you offer your thoughts with a statement at the RFAr case, your views are not less important just because you lack any artificial "seniority" (I'd even say that you, unlike most people there, can offer a truly neutral view, not being involved with this user before). I agree with you that some people seem to be desperately trying to link two incidents that are not related in any way. But all we can try to do is to try and convince ArbCom of that. I stated this already, I think if you feel the same you should just put this in the RFAr. Regards  So Why  18:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * mmmm ... valid points all the way around SoWhy. OK, I'll give it a go, although I may get some of the formatting wrong along the way.  I just hope everyone can put this behind us ASAP, and we can get back to the more mundane "User:ABC reverted my good faith edits" kind of things.  Appreciate your time an consideration, Cheers. (think I just copy/paste and edit .. it'll save me a few keystrokes ;)) — Ched :  ?  20:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about formatting, just copy the style others used and you'll be fine. :-) I, too, hope the drama will subside soon but I fear this community is prone to it so there will be new drama soon. Anyway, you are welcome, feel free to ask whenever you need help. Regards  So Why  20:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Saeed Tiwana
Not sure if you noticed, so I figured I'd comment, but this guy has been spamming his bio in multiple places with facebook/personal/business contacts. Asside from wondering if any of it is even true, there's more than significant wp:coi issues. Just thought I'd make a note of that. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed. But as I have shown in my rewrite, there is at least one reliable source mentioning him, so it fails A7. Regards  So Why  19:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Deletion of article on Christiane Vleugels
If you think the person concerned is not significant enough, I may add that the Gallery des Beaux Art is well known in Cologne, that her works reached as far as Egypt, that she has fans from all nations, that at least four thousands of people, and probably far more, are continually keeping up with her works, and that Vleugels has been widely acclaimed for originality and photorealistic detail.

If people need to have "significant hits at news.google.com/archivesearch," then I challenge you to explain why many people mentioned in other biographical articles return no significant search results on Google News. Two examples I picked at random from the list of Belgian painters, also contemporary:

Philip Henderickx — no references except concerning the "mixing of exotic drinks"

The "De Vriendt Brothers" — no references except in an anniversary list.

You will find many more examples of these. Wikipedia is full of people and things that no one has ever heard about. If the article is not allowed to be created, it cannot grow, and one can only tell how well the people are really known from whether or not the article grows.

You must admit, the similarities are very close, as these also concern stub articles about little known contemporary painters which return no significant search results on Google News — yet, these were not deleted, in contrast to my own article about Vleugels. This is unreasonable and unjust, and I protest.

Please discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernovic (talk • contribs) 21:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please review Other stuff exists as to why your argument is none at all. But let's see the other articles, shall we? Philip Henderickx has a reliable source mentioning him, which is enough to avoid speedy deletion. De Vriendt brothers is a copy from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition and as such presumed to be a notable topic. In comparison, the article you create did not have any indication why the subject should be considered meeting our notability guidelines. If you can provide reliable sources to verify that this is in fact the case, you are welcome to recreate the article. If your only claims stem from having fans and work in a gallery though, I advise against it. Many YouTube artists have much more fans than 4000 and still we do not think they are notable, do we? If she really is acclaimed, then it should be easy to find a single newspaper or critic writing about her, shouldn't it? Regards  So  Why  21:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Stupid (me I mean)
Apologies for forgetting to follow the standard AIV format earlier,  I think my brain must have (hopefully) temporarily gone AWOL. I even posted the report on ANI initially! --Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I know this kind of situation you mean, luckily that has not yet happened to me while on Wikipedia ;-) Don't worry too much about it :-) Regards  So Why  08:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

CSD RFC
Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Simplify_policy_RfC - I think that the wording there is yours, with modification from an older ArbCom. Could you comment there on why the changes were made, and whether it was just a 'make it sound better' edit, or some issue that came about through ArbCom?   M  03:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Paul Berry (musician)
You declined a speedy deletion tag on Paul Berry (musician). This article was re-tagged for speedy deletion, and I have removed the tag. So far, the consensus at the AfD is to A7 the article. What do you think? Cunard (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think reviews in reliable sources and releases on notable labels are enough to fail A7 and I have commented on the AFD in that way. Ten Pound Hammer has a history of incorrectly tagging CSD so I'm not surprised by his !vote (although I am surprised by Dank agreeing with him). Regards  So Why  08:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting at the AfD. I've seen TPH's incorrect tagging in several of the AfDs I've participated in. The most recent case was Articles for deletion/Miike Snow (album) in which the CSD was added by TPH, declined by Dank, re-added by TPH, removed by me, re-added by TPH, and then deleted by Jéské. It's frustrating that he disregards the opinions of people who work at CSD. Cunard (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case though the fault partially lies with Jéské for ignoring the previous decline, thus allowing TPH to forumshop successfully. But of course, if you notice something like that, you should remind him to not do so again. Regards  So Why  09:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I'll notify TPH if he does that again. Cunard (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin
Ok, First of all, how was your vacation? I hope it was good.Now, I have a question. How many edits is a good amount to go up for adminship?i have 1.5k (not that anyone is counting :P) and I first planned to go at 2k edits but now I am having my thoughts about that. I think I could make an Admin because of my involvement iwth several wikiprojects, and two articles nearly GA, One of which I have done 90% of,Lifeline ( The sound section needs to be bettered or taken out completely, and a reception section would either way, make it a GA). While my other one is in my sandbox, and is about to be created, which has mainly edited by Me and User:MelicansMatkin, Bulbasaur evolutionary lineAnd some other mid level stubs, listed on my Userpage. I am hoping you don't take this as I am taking you for a training ground (which I am DEFINITLY not), You are just my most respected Admin, and I like to hear your opinion above everyone else, Cheers!-- Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 16:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It was great, although too expensive. Thanks for asking. :-)
 * Usually, people have 2000-3000 edits but those who have many automatic edits, the threshold is usually 5000 or higher. But that's just a rough estimate. Seeing your editor review yields some constructive criticism, you might want to wait for some time as both The Earwig and Timmeh raise valid points that will be lead to opposes and criticism at an RFA. I think I said it before, but you seem too eager to get adminship (see WP:TROPHY for how that might look like), which is not a good thing. You should consider getting yourself some experienced admin coach who is knowledgeable in that area and can evaluate your chances better than I can. Regards  So Why  17:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm happy your vacation went well.And yes I have asked someone and currently waiting for a reply about coaching, as I got another answer saying about 3k for me, because of the quality and my created articles, but I think I'll goo off this more than that.Also I am sorry that I seem to be too eager to be an admin, I do not look at it as a trophy, but rather an opportuninty to help more, because recently I have been working in areas such as WP:AFD and would like to delete articles when a consensus have been reached etc..Well thanks for answering my query. Cheers!-- Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 18:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Coudl you delete User:Permethius/Sandbox4, as It is my subpage and I ahve no use for it anymore. Thanks-- Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 18:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good luck with coaching then. I deleted your subpage. Regards  So Why  18:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks!-- Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

CPUSH
Given your comment here, are you aware of WP:CPUSH? It seems a similar concept but I haven't been tracking it's adoption. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Diego de Landa (Calderón)
Hello. I have started discussion suggesting an article which you moved be moved back. See Talk:Diego de Landa Calderón and please make any comments there. Thank you. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have just fulfilled a requested move, I have no opinion on that matter. Regards  So Why  17:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Middle East (band)
You deleted a valid folk band from Townsville Australia - Why? they have been written about: http://www.triplejunearthed.com/Artists/FeaturedArtist.aspx?artistid=12670

http://oceansneverlisten.blogspot.com/2009/05/blood-middle-east.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.197.175 (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Because when I came across it, the only content of the page was "Watch this page". Regards  So Why  11:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

CSD'ing of Survivial Sunday.
Can I afd this?--Jamie Shaw (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can, but if you haven't already done so, I would advise you to read WP:BEFORE first. decltype (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 25 May 2009 ==


 * License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
 * News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
 * 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

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh?
No. I requested for deletion. This template is not suitable. Raymond Giggs 07:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You do realize that patent nonsense is not a correct choice then? If you want to request deletion, please use a template-related criterion or use WP:TFD. Your tagging was a mistake in any way, I just assumed it was not intentional as I have never before seen anyone tag a valid template, that is used in other templates, as G1 (and rightly so). So please make yourself familiar with what consists valid reasons for speedy deletion and what is not. Regards  So Why  07:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How did you know?
Actually, back in my great-great grandfather's day ... the family split in regards to the last name. While my side took the Davis name, other ancestors continued with the Davies name. I'm not sure how you were aware of this. Was that a common thing to happen as my ancestors came from the UK to the US? I'd love to learn more about my past. Do you have any ideas for me that I could learn from? — Ched : ?  19:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, talk about interesting stuff spawned by typos. Unfortunately, none of that could ever be intended by my typo, I think I just confused your last name with another admin's, . Maybe he can share such stories about his last name? =)  So Why  21:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * cool, I'm definitely a "click-read" kind of guy. Also, I wanted to thank you for your help and guidance on the RFA-learn thing.  I'm reading through the stuff you've mentioned, and followed with User:SoWhy/Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion.  XfD is definitely a weak spot for me, so I'll brush up the best I can in that area.  If you wouldn't mind watching that rfa-learn page from time to time, I'd surely appreciate any and all advice you'd be willing to share.  Going back, I had seen several of Rogers' posts, but I'm not really familiar with him.  Is he a nice guy that wouldn't mind me dropping by with personal questions like that? — Ched :  ?  22:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. I'll help you as best as I can, no question. :-)
 * Don't know Roger that well but he seems nice enough. He's an arb, so he is used to dealing with people asking him stuff. In the spirit of wiki, be bold and assume he will not mind. If he does, he can always say so, can't he? :-) Regards  So Why  06:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy decline of Marcus Solis
I feel your decline was misunderstood. Your reason for the decline was that Solis is on a network. WABC is owned by ABC, but they are the local station, reporting local news like any other local affiliate. He's not a network correspondant. Surely you aren't saying that everyone who is simply a reporter for a local station is automatically notable do you? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * First of, A7, despite commonly misunderstood, is not about notability. I have not made any statement about whether the subject is really notable. I'm just saying that working for a notable station on a notable show (Eyewitness News) is indication that the subject might meet the guidelines for inclusion. Whether they really do is nothing that can or indeed should be determined through speedy deletion. I'm sorry if my decline reason was unclear, it should have been "an indication of importance/significance". I'll keep it in mind to be more careful. Regards  So Why  13:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A7 says "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.". I used the term notability because it is simply shorter to type. Solis is a local reporter from a local station, just like thousands of other reporters. There is nothing in the article (which has no sources) to indicate why he is any different than those other thousands. The sole mention of anything making him different is that he mispronounced the name of a drug on air. "Eyewitness News" is not a notable show. If you look at the article you linked to, you'll see it is the generic name for many local newscasts. I'd ask you to look at this and reconsider what you find significant about his career. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You might use "notability" because it's shorter to type but A7 actually makes a distinction that "importance or significance" is a lower standard than notability. There does not have to be any indication of notability for an subject to meet this standard. If you read the WABC-TV article, you will notice that it says that their Eyewitness News is considered to be especially noteworthy for its successfulness and thus being on that show might make someone more significant than on another version of this format. But the point remains: I have not claimed (and I will not) that the subject of the article is in fact important or significant. Just that it might be, based on this reasoning. You are free to pursue deletion via the WP:PROD or WP:AFD venues. Regards  So Why  15:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Page protection for Golden Retriever
Hi SoWhy! I'd like your opinion on whether or not I should request semi-protection for Golden Retriever. The page gets IP vandalism several times per week, plus many people attempting to fix it don't use undo, so lots of text gets lost or errors creep in unnoticed. I think semi-protection would be a great help, but I wonder if I ought to first try putting something on the talk page about using the undo function for vandalism correction. I'm not very good at being bold, so I wanted an admin's opinion first. Thanks very much! -Sketchmoose (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel highly appreciated that you seek my opinion. So here it is: No, you shouldn't. Any request at the current moment will almost certainly be declined. There have only been two such edits in over a week and as Wikipedia is build on the spirit of "anyone can edit", protection will usually not be used in such cases to allow this. Instead, you might want to point out the use of undo to editors you notice not using it. I doubt it would be helpful on the talk page but on their user talk pages it might be. After all, you can make yoursef a user warnings-style template to do so if it becomes tiresome. Regards  So Why  16:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: I just noticed that you are exactly 5 months younger than me. Nevermind this remark, I just tend to find such things amusing (don't ask me why). ;-)


 * Thanks! You have been a great help.  Happy (belated) birthday, by the way. :) -Sketchmoose (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. If you need any other assistance, feel free to contact me at any time. And thanks :-)  So Why  18:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Coach
First of all, I hope you don't mind me asking you questions, because currently I'm unsure whether I am irritating you or not. Now I will ask you a question. I was going for admin coaching with the only person who was noted available, but then he said he would not be able to at the time, so I was wondering if you knew anyone that wasnt on the list that could help me. Also, since it's Administrator Review, can I still write a review? Cheers!-- Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 15:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome, so don't worry. You can ask . While the page notes him having three coachees, Wadester16 has passed RFA in the meantime. He's a great admin and you'd be lucky if he coaches you.
 * And anyone can review at Administrator's review, the name alludes to the fact that the reviewed are admins and the scope is their admin actions rather than overall editing as with ER. Regards  So Why  15:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

S Marshall
Feel free to join the nom party if you wish. I think you'd be a good addition. You are certainly one of a handful of editors/admins whose opinions I look for... Hobit (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment. As I outlined on his talkpage though, I will probably only have little time for Wikipedia the next days and thus probably lack the time needed to vet a candidate appropriately. I'll look forward to that RFA though :-) Regards  So Why  07:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Advice
I believe two users, Ryulong and Daedalus969, have followed me from the David Boothroyd MfD incident and are opposing me in an unrelated AfD discussion at Articles_for_deletion/Marcelo_Lucero without actually looking into the article's context or sourcing; that is to say, I believe their actions at this unrelated AfD to be thoughtless wiki-stalking/harassment. The best example of this is that Daedalus969 claimed the murder was too recent for an article despite it having taken place in November of 2008. Could you please investigate this and advise me on how to proceed? TAway (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes: Let it go. Honestly. You have said what you needed to say to oppose deletion of the article and any further engagement can only hurt your cause. The AFD will be judged (or should be at least) by the strength of arguments and not by !votes, so there is nothing more you can do to influence the outcome except adding further policy-based reasons why this should be kept. On a side note, as this is an article about a WP:BLP1E, it might be wise to rewrite it to cover the event rather than the person. Regards  So Why  21:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Intervention is not meant to be endorsement of current content? Then why did you revert Matthew Johns?
I think that you abused your admin powers when you chose the point to revert to when intervening, since you reverted to a previous point before when you judged an edit war began. An impartial application of a protected page would have simply preserved the current version.Archaic d00d (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Per our protection policy (and I quote): "Administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists". Since the dispute began with your edits on May 27, it's perfectly fine to revert to the previous version prior to this dispute. Regards  So Why  12:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists."::::
 * There is certianly no clear points that an edit violates "vandalism, copyright violations or defamation of living persons". The quote was a quote widely published in Australian newspapers, it is NOT defamation and the article took no position on it being true.
 * This is hardly a clear point of any of these things, revert the page back to the last edit before you decided to lock it.Archaic d00d (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You will notice that the third sentence you quoted (which I also quoted above) contains the word "also" and thus it is allowed to revert back even in cases where there is no policy violation. As such, since the edit-warring was about your additions, logically the point before those additions is an "old version of the page predating the edit war" as described by the policy. Regards  So Why  16:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Your premises are flawed. It's not about my additions, it was about my additions and Jeff79's additions, WWGB's additions. Maybe you would have a point if one editor was changing the article, but when several are then there is no clear point when an edit war begins. Btw I think you are putting too much weight on the word "also", i think the above paragprah should be interpreted to simply mean admins can revert if a clear case of vandalism, copyright violations or defamation exists. The other problem I have is why on earth would you lock a page untill November 12? That seems excessive, why not just a week?Archaic d00d (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. If you look at the history of the article, you will notice that there was no edit-warring between May 21 and May 27 and just started on May 27. As such, the last edit from May 21 marks the last somewhat stable version which had no active dispute about it (at least via edit-warring). So reverting to that point is in line with the policy.
 * I'm afraid but you seem to be the one misunderstanding policy. If the protected version contains vandalism, BLP violations or copyright violations, then admins have to revert to an earlier version because that version cannot be allowed to be seen. In comparison, the next sentence uses the word "may" to indicate that admins are also allowed to revert when such issues are not present but only as written in the policy, i.e. to a point predating the edit-warring, not to a version they prefer. I have done so.
 * As for the end date, I have taken the already set protection date instead of indefinite. The article was set on semi-protection before, ending on November 12 and this way the admin lifting full protection can restore the previous semi protection easily. The time is not important anyway, protection will be lifted as soon as there is consensus about the disputed content, no matter when that is. Regards  So Why  22:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK my friend, as it's written I'll admit you interpreted the policy correctly. I read the same paragraph initially and thought it only gave admins the right to edit when important policies were blatantly violated. But that sentence which you mention does exist though I read it from the perspective that in a clear case of BLP, copyright violations or vandalism admins can revert to before the edit war began if it can easily be determined. But no, it says "also" meaning aswell as in the cases of the previous sentence. As I mentioned, I am quite surprised by the policy, so I looked further into the issue. I checked the talk page archives but only found a recent discussion where a similar issue was discussed, that freezing the page in the current version rewards edit warring and admins should choose other versions. The consensus was strongly(in fact I believe unanimously) opposed to such a policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy/Archive_8#Protecting_the_current_version_rewards_revert_warriors Here is the origins of the sentence http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Protection_policy&diff=239521389&oldid=238576582, I would remove it now myself but I'd like to talk to you first. I think the reason it has not been deleted in the mean time is that other people have misinterpreted the policy in a similar way to how I did, given how strong the opposition to giving admins discretionary powers to choose versions was. Locking a page is meant to be a completely neutral move and in no way a punishment or endorsement. I'd like you to revert the page back(to the version where you locked it) and put a realistic end date (like 7 days after you locked it, I don't think a longer time is justified even if it makes it easier) since this is a developing issue (with Matthew Johns possibably launching legal action). Archaic d00d (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not think you should revert back that change without discussion. Per WP:SILENCE, it's usually assumed that if an edit is allowed to stand for such a long time, then it represents consensus and should not be reverted without a new consensus. I think if it has been added by an established user and admin and has not been challenged for almost 10 months, it's as Hiding says in his edit summary: Common practice. And as policies usually just document what is accepted standard, changing it would require that standard to change first. If you think this part is incorrect, please open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy outlining your reasoning first.
 * But the main point is, I was following policy and I am still neutral. I have not reverted back because it's a version I prefer but because it's the last stable version before the dispute. As such, the revert is still not an endorsement or punishment and thus not in violation of policy.
 * As for the protection length, usually pages locked for edit-warring reasons are locked with an end date of "indefinite" because any amount of time can just mean that those edit-warring will just wait for that time to pass and then continue. I decided not to do so in this case based on the way the protection system works. As it was previously semi-protected until that date, the previous admin's decision will usually be restored once full protection is lifted. The admin doing so can now just change the protection level without having to add the end time manually (as it's preserved) while the long time is pretty equal to "indefinite". As I explained above, the time does not mean it cannot (and will not) unprotected sooner. As the protection template says, "until 12 November 2009 or until disputes have been resolved." So as soon as the dispute has been resolved, the protection will be lifted, no matter the time listed. Regards  So Why  08:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You were not following wikipedia policy. You may have acted in accordance with wikipedia policy(as written*) but because you used discretionary powers you weren't simply following. You say that you are neutral, but I'm not convinced. This is why the consensus was against giving admins such discretion, because people will so often accuse admins of bias. For instance you made a judgement call about when the edit war began, but did it begin then? or when it was reverted? Does the fact that an unrelated change was made (which you reverted (which is a shame because that addition was correcting an obvious error)) obscure a clear starting point? I find appeals to authority unconvincing. *I think this was a change against consensus which slipped under the radar, and Hiding should have known better if he/she is so experienced. As for your WP:SILENCE justification, "Silence is the weakest form of consensus" compare that to this emphatic consensus agianst any such moves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy/Archive_8#Protecting_the_current_version_rewards_revert_warriorsArchaic d00d (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, no admin can be expected to check all discussions whether every part of policy text really reflects consensus and as such, current consensus, if you like it or not, is the version that exists uncontestedly. The discussion you point out happened months before the change and as such, consensus might have changed to favor the version that policy currently reflects. That does not make following this policy a breach of its spirit. And as such it's perfectly possible that a change 4 months afterwards reflected the current consensus and the fact that noone contested it, serves to confirm that this might in fact might have been the case.
 * I did not make a judgment call as to when the edit-warring began. I just reverted back to a stable version that was clearly before that, which both sides can agree was before the edit-warring (even you have to agree that this version was in fact before the edit-warring even if you think there were versions afterwards that were also before it). If you think I acted outside policy, I'm sorry but I do not see that this is the case. You are of course welcome to raise the subject at the admins' noticeboard if you think this is really the case. Regards  So Why  11:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You made a judgement call (both in using the policy and in determining how to use it), it might have been easy for you, but does an edit war start with the an edit that will be reverted, or it's reversion? And like I said you reverted a correction to an obvious grammatical error aswell. It's not clear if that means you shouldn't revert it or not under the current (well not if my reversion is standing ;-) policy (as written). I thnk you are wrong to make the judgement that what is called the "weakest form of consensus" is greater than the consensus in the talk page archives. You should have let my edit stand on the policy page, the burden of proof is on that policy to demonstrate it's consensus (given that silence is weak, and even when looking straight at it i thought it couldn't possibably mean what you said it did, and the overwhelming consenus against giving admins discretion apart from BPL etc). I think a main reason that people don't like giving discretion powers is to protect admins like you from editors like me, because any judgement call will annoy some editor who will annoy you in your talk page ;-)Archaic d00d (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (←) I do not think I did but I doubt I can convince you about that, seeing that you are biased in the dispute at hand while I have not the slightest interest in the subject. As I tried to explain to you, consensus can change in the time since that discussion and the edit by Hiding, as well as the fact that this was not reverted, indicates it. Your changes to the policy page are unfortunate and reflect an older consensus that is obsolete. You should not have reverted me per WP:BRD, the burden of proof that this is not consensus lies on the one removing it, after they were reverted (because the revert shows an active disagreement). I will raise the issue on the talk page as you seem unwilling to discuss it with the community. Regards  So Why  11:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As sure as I can be of anything in the external world, you made a judgement call (of when the war began, that it was clear, and that you would use discretionary powers). I understand your explanation. However, I am sceptical that consenus could change from strongly opposed to full acceptance in such a time period. I think people just missed it, and silence is the weakest form of consensus. I knew you would revert, but you shouldn't have reverted me because when you did that you implied "silence on a policy that might have flown under the radar, and had no disccusion > strong consensus against similar policy on talk page", I don't think that can be justified. But I want to be civil, what do we agree on? That your interepretation of the policy as it was written was correct. Is that all? I know I've argued alot with you here, but no hard feelings from me ;-) Hopefully, we atleast clear up a policy from thisArchaic d00d (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I need your mentorship
Hi,

I need help from an experienced Wikipedian, and I saw your name over at WP:ADOPT.

I need your advice concerning WP:WPOOK, which I've been coordinating. The set of pages the project concerns is listed at Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge and WikiProject Outline of knowledge, and has grown to about 500 articles in the encyclopedia.

The goals of the WikiProject are:


 * 1) Increase awareness of readers of the existence of the outlines on Wikipedia
 * 2) Complete the existing outlines
 * 3) Create an outline for every subject that is extensive enough to benefit from having an outline (core subjects and major or extensive fields).  There are thousands of these.
 * 4) Recruit as many editors to work on these as possible (we need thousands of editors working on these)
 * 5) Surpass portals in number by the end of the summer, and leave them in the dust by the end of the year
 * 6) Get the major outline subject areas displayed on the Main Page (in place of or in addition to the portal links at the top of the page)
 * 7) Increase the OOK to higher quality than Britannica's Outline of Knowledge (published in its Propaedia volume).

I'm very interested in your comments on how to achieve these goals.

Also I'm interested in every possible way of reaching readers and editors of Wikipedia. How can I get the most eyes and typing fingers on Wikipedia's outlines? Contacting editors directly without a reason relevant to them is spam, which I'd like to avoid. There are 75,000 regular editors on Wikipedia, and I want to contact all of them. But how do I do it?

Directly or indirectly, I don't care which, piecemeal or all-at-once, all methods are fine with me. But I've got to find ways. I need your advice.

I would also like to know how to find or attract editors to create new outlines. And I need advice on finding editors to help write the new outline article mentioned above (it needs to be fleshed out, completely referenced, and brought to featured article status).

Please recommend anyone you know who might be interested in sinking their teeth into a project like this. Or ways to reach groups of editors. Or ways to reach all editors. I welcome any and all recommendations and advice you might have.

And any thoughts on attaining the WikiProject goals above.

I look forward to your reply on my talk page.

The Transhumanist 03:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The D'ark Night Film Festival
Please be advised the per WP:PROD, articles that have previously been proposed for deletion using the prod process are not candidates for prod. Accordingly, I have removed the prod tag from The D'ark Night Film Festival, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Varbas (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for that, I have not noticed the previous prod. You are correct of course. Regards  So Why  16:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/The D'ark Night Film Festival - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You might be pleased with this result. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm an inclusionist, so "pleased" is probably the wrong word. It was the outcome that had to be done to remove the worst articles that really do not deserve a place here. Regards  So Why  13:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 1 June 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Browsing the archives
 * Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
 * Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
 * News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fix
Thanks for removing that tag that my bot re added, I'll probably put something in so it doesn't edit user pages unles it's a general tag or user space.... Anyway, thanks again - Kingpin13 (talk) 06:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny, I just left you a message to request just that ;-) Regards  So Why  06:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, I' still trying to keep track of all it's contribs at the moment due to it's recent implentation. I'll add this in about 15 minutes. Gotta go to the shop first, so I'll leave it running for that time. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added that now, so we shouldn't have that particular incident again. Happy editing :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing your talk page
How did you make that alert box show up at the top of the page when editing this page?? -Garrett W. (Talk / Contribs / Email) 06:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See Editnotice. Regards  So Why  06:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

-Garrett W. (Talk / Contribs / Email) 12:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, cool. Also one other question: if you go to my page and look on the right where my programming languages are, why can't I put a box in there that requires a parameter by using ! ?


 * Good question...I have no idea. You might want to ask an expert on templates like or  for help (see Category:User template coder-5). Regards  So  Why  12:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Ikip/amib and RFAr
I noticed you deleted User:Ikip/amib, but it was linked as evidence in an ongoing RFAr case. I was curious as to the reason it was deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As indicated by my deletion summary, it was on request by the user in whose namespace it existed via e-mail (as they are currently blocked from editing). I was not aware of it being used in an ArbCom case but if needed, all members of ArbCom can easily access it, as can you. If you think it's needed for your defence in aforementioned case, you are free to restore it and move it to your userspace for future reference. Regards  So Why  07:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wasn't worried about it being unreadable, was just curious what led to the deletion. Thanks much! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unprotecting Bernoulli number
There doesn't seem to be any remaining disagreement at Talk:Bernoulli number, and the story has left the front pages of all the news aggregators, so I think the article can be unprotected now. Cheers, Melchoir (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Unprotected. Regards  So Why  08:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Melchoir (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Winchester bus route 5
Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam mugliston (talk • contribs) 10:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What for? It will be deleted, I have no doubt about that. It just can't be speedy deleted but as Wikipedia is not a bus guide, it will not stay. You might consider just tagging it with db-author to save yourself and others the time until that happens. Regards  So Why  10:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Camp
I'm a bit surprised that you declined a speedy deletion on above article. being a small group part of a large event does not constitute notability. The article makes not assertion of notability, and after a lengthy discussion I had with the page creator discussion it because rather clear that while thee author feels that his group is important (they always do), there is no substance to that assertion at all. Passportguy (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A7 is not about notability, neither existing nor asserted. It's about the possibility that the subject might be important or significant in any way and this is usually possible when they are part of a larger, notable entity. Whether they really are or not is not for A7 to decide; you can use WP:PROD or WP:AFD to delete it if there is no notability. Regards  So Why  12:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP CSD A7 does talk about a "claim" of notability, not a theoretical possibility that one could exist. Otherwise everything could be construed as possibly being notable unless it is a hoax and does not exist at all. Passportguy (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. Let me quote from it (emphasis added):
 * As I said above, imho being part of a notable entity is such a credible claim, albeit an implied one. I understand that other admins might have other ways to read this although I think most of those patrolling CSD agree with me that all criteria for speedy deletion should be applied narrowly. Regards  So Why  13:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said above, imho being part of a notable entity is such a credible claim, albeit an implied one. I understand that other admins might have other ways to read this although I think most of those patrolling CSD agree with me that all criteria for speedy deletion should be applied narrowly. Regards  So Why  13:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox biografía
On 24 May, you tagged Template:Infobox biografía with rfd, but you did not complete the nomination by listing it at WP:RFD. Can you please complete the second step of the nomination? If you do not list it within a reasonable amount of time, I'll assume you no longer wish to see it deleted and will remove the template. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It should have been in the nomination at Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 24 but I seem to have forgot adding it to the list. I'll delete it as G6, seems like there is no controversy in deleting such redirects based on aforementioned nomination's consensus. Regards  So Why  16:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I agree that G6'ing is reasonable. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Larry Kent
Hello Sir - I submitted a page on Canadian filmmaker Larry Kent which was deleted. I pasted a bio I found online to bookmark the page before I went back into it and drafted an original page. I am working with the legendary Mr. Kent to create this page and I would really appreciate the page to be restored...Larry is very old and needs his work represented on Wiki.

Thank you in advance Chris Alexander —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderEternal (talk • contribs) 01:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Chris, unfortunately you cannot paste texts you found on the Internet to Wikipedia, doing so is a copyright violation that has to be removed on sight to avoid legal problems. You are free to write your own text about the subject but before you do, you might want to read up whether Larry Kent can be considered notable within our guidelines (see guidelines about the notability of biographies). Your first article has more information on writing an article for the first time. Regards  So Why  08:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ray moe
Hello SoWhy, could you restore this to my userspace? It wasn't my intention to tag for speedy. In fact, I thought I had substed out everything that would make it appear in cat:csd.. decltype (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, it should not be needed anymore. decltype (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for that. I can still restore it if you like. Regards  So Why  18:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah, that's ok. I had intended it as a question for the latest RfA candidate, but I made another one. decltype (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. Sorry then again (although next time you might want to clarify that on the page somewhere, seeing as it might be easily misread as an attack page). Regards  So Why  18:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're right. Will do. decltype (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism
Hi SoWhy! Would I add to a case of vandalism like this? Would I create the page by adding the template to the non-existent article, or would I add the template to the talk page? Or, would it be more appropriate to just rollback the edit and move on? I have been to New York City, it is great! I'm glad you got to go, too, :-)  Mae din \talk 19:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You usually add the template to the page in question, not the corresponding page. If the talk page is only vandalism, add it to it. In that case, it would maybe even be a G10, at least the latter version. G8 is correct as well of course, since there is no article for that talk page (kind of an delete-it-all for talk pages without articles, no matter the content). Regards  So Why  19:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Great, thank you, :-)  Mae din \talk 06:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As usual, you are more than welcome. Regards  So Why  08:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Mohamed ElBaradei unprotection request
Hi there! I'm having a discussion with Tanthalas39 on their talk page about the above. I'd value your opinion. Thanks. Ged UK  14:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Crom (band)
Undelete the Crom (Band) page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.154.41 (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You are a bit of a homo though, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.154.41 (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not know why you think that trying to insult me will help your cause in any way. I will be happy to explain to you why the page was deleted and what requirements are needed to restore it (mainly that there is some sort of credidle claim that the band could be considered important or significant) but I fear I won't just do it because you decided I should do so and tried to insult me (if I considered "homo" an insult, which I don't). If you are willing to talk about the article itself and what can be done about it, I'd be happy to. Regards  Yhw Os  08:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

UK Cabinet protection
Hi - you declined protection because the user was blocked. They're back on a new IP. Could you consider semi-protecting the page, please? Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► sundries ─╢ 16:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Advice again
How, when AfDs aren't allowed to last more than an hour and deletion reviews wherein several administrators support undeletion are closed as "keep deleted per status quo" regardless, am I supposed to develop an article? Especially when new reliable sources in the British media keep popping up and Jehochman bans me for developing them in my userspace? TAway (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I think the close was incorrect but as we are both involved, I do not know if I am correct. The closing administrator is more neutral than I am in this case. So...advice? Wait a few weeks, after the controversy has died down, then, if the subject is still notable, recreate the article with new sources and text. You can also try and raise concerns of the close of the DRV at WP:AN but I do not think that this will be very successful. Sometimes working on Wikipedia means to accept someone else breaking the rules and getting away with it. Regards  So Why  11:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

csdhelper
Hi You might want to give User:Ale jrb/Scripts/csdhelper.js a try since I'm slow, and it looks as if I'm going to have even less time for Wikipedia in the next couple of months. Amalthea 15:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Thanks for the tip, I tried it but somehow I am too stupid to get it to work. I'll bother ale jrb about that tho. If it works like the thing I wanted from you, you'll probably don't have to do anything anymore (except maybe integrating it into Twinkle). Good luck with whatever takes your time at the moment. Regards  So Why  19:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How did you find it o.O? Either way, SoWay, you can now add your own decline reasons to the script. Instructions are on the script page - you just use an array. Cheers, A le_Jrb <sup style="color:blue;">talk  21:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try it out immediately. Thanks for your work on the script, great help. Regards  So Why  05:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it popped up in my watchlist, by some editor adding it to his monobook. And since the tool I had started working on is called SpeedyHelper, that obviously caught my attention. :) Amalthea  12:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I just remembered: it was in . Amalthea  13:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh. Awesome :). A le_Jrb <sup style="color:blue;">talk  14:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

CSD
Hi SoWhy. I've been doing a lot of the BLP unCat lately, and run across a bunch of junk. While I'll likely never be a big CSD tagger, after reading through your tutorials, and the CSD stuff - I thought I'd try one on an article that just didn't have much work put into it. Would you look at Lucette Finas and see if I got it right. I didn't use the A7, but rather the db-person. Let me know right or wrong, even if I'm not doing much of it, I'd rather understand the proper way of it. Thanks — Ched : ?  19:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * addendum also, am I supposed to go notify User:Gruesome Pet of the tag (the creator)? I didn't, but will if that is required, or even considered proper etiquette.  Thanks. — Ched :  ?  20:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The tag is correct, there is no credible claim of importance or significance. Nevertheless, I'd decline it in this case because I think the subject might be important or significant per Google News and Google Scholar hits. Yes, you should notify the creator (the tag tells you how to under "Please consider placing the template..."). Regards  So Why  20:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for such a quick reply. I'll read up on the "Please consider placing the template", and remove the CSD.  I didn't do a Google search, so best to remove myself than have the mistake hanging out there.  Thanks again. — Ched :  ?  20:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. As I said, it's not an incorrect tag but I usually like to keep whatever looks like it could possibly meet the guidelines and those Google News/Scholar hits (not Google web search!) do indicate that someone by that name was covered in reliable sources. You might want to try and expand the article with those sources yourself although I've seen that MLauba started with that as well. It's great that you go through BLP articles but if it's quite easy to fix them up with some sources, you should do so instead of tagging them for speedy. Our goal is to keep information after all. :-) Regards  So Why  20:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm dreadfully sorry about my rudeness here, I have SoWhy's talk page watchlisted because there's many opinions on CSD which I'm interested in reading, decided to follow the link out of curiosity, hit a google search and found sources, started to add some... and totally forgot to apologize for bursting in, so intent was I in sourcing it before someone would retag and speedy. Apologies, that was extremely rude from me. --MLauba (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. You did the right thing imho (as Ched will probably agree with) as in this case it might have been deleted very quickly while I was talking to Ched. Saving the article from deletion should be more important than allowing Ched to de-CSD it. After all, if the issue is ever cited against his knowledge, both you and me can testify the circumstances. Regards  So Why  20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) I didn't think it was rude in the least MLauba. I'm definitely on the "preserve information" end of the dreaded (I vs. D), and only want to understand the proper things in regards to the CSD stuff.  I figure the better I understand XfD things, the better I'll be able to "build" the articles.  I'm glad you did fix it up!!!  I may even put in some work to it as well in the next day or two.  I appreciate running into polite editors who work to build the site, and it's a pleasure to meet you.  No need to apologize to me whatsoever!  Cheers and happy editing ;) — Ched :  ?  20:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (Ched can picture SoWhy thinking "Don't you guys have your own talk pages?" ... lol)

Rainhill Labour Club, Merseyside its rise and fall
Dear Sir

I posted my first Wikipedia article and it has been deleted.

I did notice afterwards that it may be deleted due to it being a Club.

However if you read the article it is not just about a Club, it is about the political aspirations of the Labour Political Party, and how in general such labour clubs have risen and fell over since the second world war.

The article also provides the reader with important legal information about the status of a private members club as this differs from a sole trader and limited company.

I am a solicitor which is why I have written this article. If you would like me to expand a bit more then I would be happy to do so.

Regards (Ronnie061 (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Ronnie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnie061 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there. It was not deleted because it was about a club but because there was no indication that it might meet our inclusion guidelines for such subjects. If you can provide reliable sources that cover this club and/or tell me a reason why it should be considered at all significant or important (the club itself, not the history it might or might not stand for), I will be happy to restore the article and give you further help in developing it. Your first article helps you if you want to try it again for yourself. Regards  So Why  20:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Technologos_(disambiguation)
Seems to me that it should be deleted, but I suppose now it would have to go through AfD.  Enigma <sup style="color:#FFA500;">msg  03:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably, unfortunately, A7 does cover neither products nor concepts. Feel free to bring it to AFD. Regards  So Why  08:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Hi there SoWhy. How are you? I hope you are doing well :)

With all these threads going on about Paid Editing and such, I figured I might as well put in a request for someone to review my article. The article, which I am drafting at User:NuclearWarfare/DemiDec (and intend to make into the article 'DemiDec'), is about a company that I have a conflict of interest to. While I decided to create this article on my own volition, I do have a financial conflict of interest with the article; I am being paid by this company for some work unrelated to Wikipedia and have talked to Daniel Berdichevsky, my employer, about the fact that I am creating this article. While he seemed enthused about the prospect of the article and agreed that it looked good in its current form, I figured I should double check to make sure that the article fulfills WP:NPOV, as perhaps any residual conflict of interest prevents me from seeing it. Do you think you could check out the article draft and give me some feedback?

Thanks, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi NuclearWarfare. Hope you don't mind me commenting on the article draft. Here goes:
 * The article seems to maintain a neutral POV throughout. However, the article seems to draw a lot on self-published sources, such as "PRWeb" (press release from DemiDec) and "DemiDec Resources" and "YBM/Si-sa" (I presume). There's also Demidec's Facebook page, which is at best a self-published primary source. Now, these sources are okay as supporting material since they are not unduly self-serving, but keep in mind that an article should not be primarily based on those.
 * In other words, I think the article may have problems in the WP:V department. That said, there's also a fair share of RS (which I admittedly haven't looked deeply into), and I don't think it is problematic to put it into main space. However, if I was reviewing the article for DYK or similar, I would have to bring up the points above.
 * There's also a few MoS quibbles, but those are irrelevant since it is a draft. All in all, I think you have done well in maintaining a NPOV. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks there Decltype. I too thought that my source were actually not that good, which kind of frustrated me, because in the circles where DemiDec is talked about, ie, in relation to the United States Academic Decathlon, it is probably the second most notable thing after the USAD itself. I shall hunt around for more reliable sources in news archives again, but in the event that I cannot find any, do you think that it would be OK to try this for DYK anyway? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 12:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh..I was really hoping you wouldn't ask that :). I say go ahead and put it up. The worst that can happen is that it doesn't get approved. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. Thanks for all your advice. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 14:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool script
This sounded really cool, so I added it to my monobook.js. Unfortunately, I couldn't figure out how to get it to work. Is there any chance you could give me a tutorial? It would help in those few cases where I have to decline a speedy deletion request. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * . Remove the  and it should work for you.  Amalthea  07:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That entire block seems a bit awkwardly coded. There's actually no need for the two else's. Or am I just being silly? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, looks good. Just tested with this code: User:Decltype/csdhelper.js, and it seemed to work nicely. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's a script that tests whether one is an admin before working but works fine otherwise. I suggest you create your own script version though because as a normal user you should not use the terminology "decline speedy" that I use because to be exact, you cannot decline them, just remove them. And while creating your own version, you can also remove all code that is used for deletion, it's no use to you anyway ;-) Regards  So Why  12:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Way ahead of you :) <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Now you just need to make NW use your version instead of mine ;-) Regards  So Why  12:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The best would be if Alexander modified it so that the feature set and summaries changed according to the userlevel. I'd do it myself, but I'd have to learn JavaScript first. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that would be wise, it would increase the script and non-admins would have to load a script that is 2/3 junk. It would rather be more useful to create a separate user-level-script that only contains what normal users need imho. You could just ask Alex to do it, I'm sure it's quite simple to make such a stripped-down version for users. Regards  So Why  12:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

<-- Yes, thus my link to overengineering. I too would think that it would be easy to make a separate script, but I won't be in high demand, I think. I could be wrong, though. Still, it's a nice piece of work. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. With reference to your two elses, while they aren't technically necessary, my coding style prefers positive tests - i.e. if this, do something - rather than negative ones - if this, don't do something. So now you know. Hardly awkward though. Feel free to refactor if you think it will make that much difference ;).
 * Anyway, I edit it periodically, so I could possibly adapt it for non-admins at some point. We'll see. And of course, by copying it into your own file, it won;t update if I do happen to change anything. Thought I'd point that out. A le_Jrb <sup style="color:blue;">talk  21:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in terms of semantics it certainly doesn't make any difference. I just prefer not to make the code more indented than it needs to be, especially with 8 space tabs. YMMV :) <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tabs, quite possibly, really are the best thing since sliced bread. <3 :) A le_Jrb <sup style="color:blue;">talk  09:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

RFPP
Hey SoWhy. I was wondering, would it be possible for you to give me some feedback on my efforts with WP:RFPP. I feel like it's an area I have improved on in recent months, reports are generally successful, but since your there all the time, I was wondering if you could give me further feedback. Cheers. — R  2  23:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I will take a look tomorrow hopefully. I just came home and I have to get up at 6 am tomorrow (it's 11 pm here). Regards  So Why  20:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, not much you did there the last month. Looks fine so far (one semi where rootology fully protected though), but highlights another problem: Your usage of edit summaries. If you are fixing typoes like here or here, use edit summaries that indicate that (like "typo") and mark them as minor edits. If you are requesting protection, you might want to add that to the edit summary, i.e. not only "add" but "requesting semi for...". HTH. Regards  So Why  10:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Unus Framework
I removed your prod from Unus Framework, please see Talk:Unus Framework. Rules rule! Contributions/62.78.198.48 (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * They sure do. Thanks for catching my error there, I took it to AFD. Regards  So Why  09:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Help
You seem to be the most recently active admin... Please take a look at Dj 801‎ - it is a child (or someone pretending) constantly posting pictures of themselves. I've reported to AIV but there's no backlog there so it's not getting noticed. <span style="padding:2px;background: #cccccc; color: #0000cc; BORDER-RIGHT: #6699cc 3px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #6699cc 3px solid;"> 7   talk   09:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks - thought you had signed off.  <span style="padding:2px;background: #cccccc; color: #0000cc; BORDER-RIGHT: #6699cc 3px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #6699cc 3px solid;">  7   talk   09:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah, I'm just at work and as such, I'm not constantly looking at wiki (naturally^^). They seem to have stopped, unfortunately the image is on Commons and I cannot delete it there. Regards  So Why  09:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)