User talk:SoWhy/Archive 18

CSD
Why is it that "it might be notable" is enough, for you, to decline a CSD, with a request for readers to "check google news" and the rest? Why not assume that the person has checked google news, and if you're not willing to assume that, why not do it yourself? If you had you'd fine no news articles for an article that now has to sit around for a week, since you declining the speedy means that I have to go through prod or AfD. Ironholds (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think A7 is to weed out anything that cannot meet our guidelines, not those that just currently do. If you extend the GNews search to the archives (i.e. articles older than 1 month), you can find 24 hits. Unfortunately, almost all of them are either pay-per-view or in Spanish or another language I cannot read, hence I could not fix the article myself. Yet, the hits indicate that such an expansion is possible and as such, A7 is imho not the correct way to deal with it. Regards  So Why  18:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are all in English to me. Three are identical repetitions of the same quote - the others are minor mentions, not the coverage WP:N or WP:ORG requires. Ironholds (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, on page 2 and 3 of the results, there are results in Spanish and French, while all the other sources are either requiring registration to AccessMyLibrary.com (which I cannot access) or paid. Point is though, A7 does not require coverage that satisfies WP:N or WP:ORG, it does not even require any sources at all. As such, the quality of those sources is not relevant to speedy deletion but only to PROD and AFD. A7 only requires any indication of potential importance or significance and that exists in this case. Regards  So Why  18:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Reality Killed The Video Star
== Wikipedia Signpost : 10 August 2009 ==


 * Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
 * News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

CSD A7
Hello SoWhy! I hope your exam preparations are proceeding according to plan. I just came to think of something you said quite a while ago, about pre-filled deletion reasons:. I have now performed quite a few deletions myself, but have yet to see any deletion reasons being pre-filled for the different A7's, so I am curious to what you were referring to. Regards, decltype (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That depends on the point of view, I am at the second of nine books I got to read within 18 days. But today is work day so preparations rest anyway and I got time for Wikipedia.
 * As for the comment you are referring to, it only works if you go to the "delete"-tab and do not use the speedy deletion helper. It should pre-fill the reason field with something like
 * A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject
 * CSD Helper will always choose the first A7 reason defined instead and you need to manually choose. Regards  So Why  07:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I use a variety of tools to get the job done. But I was indeed referring to the built-in interface, as seen here: . decltype (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it work's for me (if I disable CSD Check). If you click on delete from a page with a tab, does it choose the reason, prefill the reason or do nothing? Regards  So  Why  07:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * this one was tagged with db-person. The drop-down was set to "Other reason", which I changed to the default A7 (as I always do), then I filled in the additional text manually. decltype (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then it is likely that another script you use interferes with the script that transfers the text from the tag to the reasons field. Unfortunately, that means sandbox and trial-and-error for you to figure out, which one :-/ Regards  So Why  07:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

< Yes, as it turns out User:Haza-w/Drop-down menus were causing it. They are part of the UI gadgets in preferences, so I didn't expect them to cause any trouble. decltype (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and sorry about making a mess of this page's history with those erratic summaries. The current revision of Reword is acting up. I have carte blanche to fix any errors I encounter, so I'll just refrain from using it for now until I've gotten a chance to look into it. On a separate note, you may find this interesting. decltype (talk) 08:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wondered what those "¤" were. Too bad if it's acting up, I was rather looking forward to using it. Thanks for the link, I expect Alex will add such a functionality to his script sooner or later. ;-) Regards  So Why  08:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are supposed to trigger a custom edit summary. As you can see, it works very well for doing a minor ce to a comment (like changing A9 to A7 as you did below). Things go wrong when I abuse it to write a new reply (by "rewording" the timestamp of the last comment, appending "\n:my comment ". decltype (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

and ...
The Guns (Album) ... A9? — Ched : ?  07:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope :) decltype (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The Guns exists which rules out A9. Regards  So Why  07:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK ... thanks for the input. The article doesn't show any notability of the album.  What do I need to read up on? — Ched :  ?  07:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A9 has two requirements: The musical recording does not indicate importance/significance (same as A7, not notability!) and the artist does not have a Wikipedia entry. Here the second requirement is not fulfilled (as the artist has an entry) and thus A9 fails. A9 was created to clean up on the album/single/EP pages created for MySpace-bands and thus the requirements are similar to A7. WP:NALBUMS is the relevant notability guideline although albums (unlike singles) usually are allowed a separate article based on the band's notability. Regards  So Why  07:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being so condescendingly curt. I keep being interrupted, and shouldn't really attempt to answer anything that requires more than a yes/no answer. While your question technically met that requirement, I am aware that my answer wasn't too helpful :) decltype (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahhh ... thank you both. That is definitely helpful.  Decyltype .. I didn't take it as condescending at all.  You've been a tremendous help to me lately.  To be honest, I'm the one who should apologize for not getting a decent barnstar out to you. — Ched :  ?  08:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now resolved - and the "creator" of the barnstar is not lost on me. ;) — Ched : ?  08:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel all warm and squishy inside when I see that barnstar being awarded. Makes me proud *sniff* Regards  So  Why  08:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

<--- Well, you can be even more proud than usual this time, considering who the recipient is, and the events that led up to his successful RfA. Thanks again Ched! decltype (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL .. you guys are silly. ;) — Ched : ?  09:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure I am. Although I am equally proud considering the awarding user, who I would have taken to RFA as well if Pedro hadn't beaten me to it. It's like my own little cabal there. Regards  So  Why  09:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Full disclosure and transparency for those "Talk page stalkers". SoWhy spent a great deal of time helping me, coaching me, and providing me with extremely valuable assistance when I was considered for an RFA.  He continues to help and guide me (as is obvious by the above posts), and I am very grateful for the help.  Awwww crap, I hate this mushy shit.  Just thanks guys. — Ched :  ?  09:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI Toiréasa Ferris
The IP's latest offering here the page has been vandalised 3 times since you turned down the PP. IP is now blocked but will return when block is up or sooner with a new IP. BigDunc 13:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Caratsch.jpg
Hi. Just to let you know, Stahlkocher responded to your question at his talk page. My German is fairly limited. :) Thanks, Aptery  gial  23:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Allow me to translate:
 * I cannot really remember what I found out back then with the help of the DB-Archiv [I guess that refers to the Deutsche Bahn Archiv] (picture-nr.: C31400). Most likely it has been published without a copyright notice in the US. It's a picture for an autograph card and was released as a press photograph.
 * My knowledge of US copyright law is not the best but iirc material had to be published using a &copy;-symbol until 1989 or otherwise it would not be copyrighted (see United States copyright law). Since this image lacks such a claim, it should be considered not copyrighted. But then again, I will leave the definite answer to someone with more knowledge in that area. Regards  So Why  05:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah. The image will inevitably be picked up at FAC, where the article is currently under review. Regardless of the source and author status, I think this tag (no copyright notice) would be more appropriate than the current one. I'll wait until our resident image experts take a look. Thanks for your help. Aptery  gial  10:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet?
I can't check, but I suspect User:Dnoorden and User:Dp enthusiast are the same person. They're both the sole contributors to Death Pineapple and the only users disputing its speedy deletion nomination. X X X antiuser 08:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Possibly but I'm no expert in that field. WP:SPI would be appropriate here probably. As for the article, unfortunately they dispute it correctly, A7 cannot be applied to comics. I converted the tag to a prod, let's hope they accept it, otherwise it needs to go to WP:AFD. Regards  So Why  08:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought a webcomic would fall under "web content" which is covered by A7? Their only claim to notability is word-of-mouth and the only result from Google is a Facebook page for the comic. Cheers X X X antiuser 08:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the page does not say anything about it being a webcomic and I could not find any website for such a comic (if it were a webcomic, it would have a website, wouldn't it?) Regards  So Why  08:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My mistake. In any case, it doesn't look like it's a comic at all. The Facebook page was created on July 1st and there's absolutely no info about this anywhere else on the web. I'll just wait and see what happens. X X X antiuser 08:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Gurkirpal Surapuri
You recently declined the speedy deletion of Gurkirpal Surapuri saying "Subject might be important/significant (check Google News) / use WP:PROD or WP:AFD (CSDH)". I'm sure you know that the criteria for speedy deletion under A7 states:


 * "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant."

That means that articles that might be important or significant but do not assert their significance are properly deleted under these criteria. If you think the subject of a speedy deletion nomination under A7 is notable, please edit the article asserting notability. If you disagree with the policy, please work to change it. Otherwise, please work within the policy except in exceptional circumstances. Best regards, Toddst1 (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just had to stifle a laugh. Time and time again people told me I am too much of a stickler to the rules when it comes to CSD. You are the first ever to claim that I am not following the policy stricly enough, so congratulations ;-)
 * Let me assure you that I am well aware of what A7 says (I wrote an essay about it even). But WP:CSD also states something very important:


 * You see, speedy policy does perfectly well allow any admin to decline almost any speedy request for almost any reason they see relevant and so did I in this case. I have no obligation to fix the article myself (I do so time and time again but sometimes I simply don't have the time) because of that decline and you are welcome to seek deletion using another venue. But I would like to deny that I have violated WP:CSD with that decline. Regards  So Why  16:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Great point, but I don't interpret that as administrators discretion to keep articles, rather it says we have discretion to delete without discussion.
 * Sorry if my previous comment sounded condescending, but we hadn't interacted and I wanted to lay out my point thoroughly. Glad you got a chuckle about it.  Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the policy lays out the exisiting criteria where "administrators have broad consensus support to ... bypass discussion." There are only certain circumstances where a "broad consensus to support" CSD has been approved.  In those cases, the admin has to use his or her discretion as to whether to keep OR delete an article.  If the article might be salvageable, then it should probably be kept and deleted via another route.  We have those other routes to give the authors every chance to salvage the articles for a reason.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Skatt Brothers
I have no objection to a restoration of Skatt Brothers if you update the article to so that it indicates why it is notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I hope it's fine now, a quick Gnews/scholar/books search found enough sources easily. Regards  So Why  20:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hi, I want to ask you something about my talk. Supposing it to be MY talk, I can edit information on it, no? What happened on spanish wikipedia is that someone BLOCKED me because of a blank page too. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veranodelamor (talk • contribs)


 * You can do anything you want on your talk page, except violating policies like personally attacking people or refactoring what other people said. Spanish Wikipedia may have different rules regarding such pages (see Wikipedia:Página de usuario) which I cannot assess, so I am sorry I cannot be of any help about things that happen on another Wikipedia. Regards  So Why  20:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

List of celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who
There's a new AfD nomination for an article you've previously discussed. Please stop by to voice your opinions again.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  11:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:George Pappas
Was it your intention to actually block User:George Pappas? You left a block note on his talk page, but he is not blocked. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ooops - yes, indeed. I have not the foggiest idea why the block was not done, I am certain I chose it (must have been one of those dreadful timeouts that happened time and time again). Thanks for notifying me, I have blocked them now. Regards  So Why  11:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A comment you made
At this diff, you said "his point of view regarding copyright issues which is quite different from current consensus". Would you please explain what copyright issue(s) I am apparently holding a view that is not in consensus? I am not trying to stir up trouble here. I'm asking honestly. I have and always will act within policy. If you think I am not, please show me. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Any single part of the NFC that requires a subjective and/or per article/usage interpretation as opposed to simplistic rules lawyering and appeals to authority, such as say, imagining there is a numerical limit to minimal use, or that an image cannot possibly be of significant value to a reader unless it is discussed in minutia in article text, or that a free content article is any more free due to a reduced, rather than an absence, of non-free content. That sort of thing. The sort of obvious to you type of judgement that you often find normal, regular, intelligent, nfc knowledgable editors, opposing you at every turn if/when they can be bothered to waste the 500 hours needed to do so. That would be my guess. What say you SW? MickMacNee (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a simple observation of your (Hammersoft's) contributions and what MickMacNee says. You cannot dispute that you have been in multiple disagreements with parts of the community when it comes to NFC related issues. Acting within policy quite often requires interpretation of policy and you can still act within your interpretation of policy while being opposed by a large number of people who hold a different interpretation of said policy. My observations are few, I will admit this readily, but it has always been evident (also from your userpage) that you are one of the most critical editors when it comes to the usage of fair use content in Wikipedia and current consensus is not as critical in that regard as you are, hence the comment. On a side note, you will notice on said talk page that the editor you accused of making legal threats has expressed surprise about this interpretation of his comments. I hope next time you can consider talking to such editors first before going directly to WP:ANI. Regards  So Why  08:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On the NLT issue, it's apparent from the thread on ANI that several editors held a similar view to mine. I don't think I acted inappropriately in bringing the issue to the attention of administrators. While there's no agreement that Dirtlawyer1 made a legal threat, it's pretty clear that a very significant majority feel he acted inappropriately. It is that very inappropriate action which forced me to stop discussing the issue with him. It is frequently the case in organizational hierarchies that when two parties are in disagreement, it is taken to the next high level of authority. Taking the dispute to an administrator noticeboard was perfectly in line with that. A contrary example is seen at Wikipedia_talk:NFC, where User:Peregrine Fisher raised an issue with me without taking the opportunity to discuss the issue with me. We had no disagreement, since he hadn't discussed the matter with me and instead took it to outside view instead. He was questioned on this behavior, and hasn't responded. That's fine. I don't think he'll do that again. Contrast that behavior with this, where a similar concern was raised on my talk page and I had opportunity to respond. In the case of my interaction with Dirtlawyer1 (which started rather amicably) there was an extant dispute which had spun out of control with his attempts at intimidating me.
 * On the issue of fair use; I readily, and happily, agree that I am more brusque than some people in this arena. I feel it is necessary. We've descended into tribalism on Wikipeda, and there's really no middle ground on the fair use issues. We've tried many times, and it's never worked. I have an inherently biased viewpoint, as do you, but I see multiple, multiple affirmations that limited use is our course. Discographies. Bibliographies. Episode lists. Character lists. Galleries. Images of living people. Size reduction. Derivative works. Freedom of panorama. All of these issues...ALL of them...have been decided in favor of limiting/reducing/restricting fair use. I have yet to see any issue in a similar vein resolve in favor of increased fair use. If my actions in support of these decisions constitute acting against consensus, then I am happy for the label. If, in fact, I am acting against consensus I should be blocked for it. I have, am, and will continue to support these decisions. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Having a different opinion is not the same as violating consensus. I have only said the former and you have just admitted that this is in fact the case. So where is the problem? Regards  So Why  15:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But, my views are how I act. Therefore, if my views are wrong I am violating consensus. My view of course would be utterly different if consensus supported a much more liberal interpretation of our fair use policies. But, they don't. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Wrong" is not the same as "different" and vice versa. Noone suggested that you violated any rules, so there is no point in discussing any alleged such violation. My comment was solely about you having a different POV and you have admitted that this is the case. I have not made nor will I make (as far as I can predict) any further comments on this issue, so the discussion is moot. Regards  So Why  16:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Hammersoft cnofuses the idea of 'more liberal' with smarter. An example - he honestly believes consensus from something like the very specific discographies ban is automatically transferrable to other non-free galleries. No discussion about the specific case against policy, no recognition of anything beyond this idea that he is 'winning the war' by enforcing dodgy precedents... Have a look at a recent discussion in which he is asked to explain the difference betweem multiple album stub articles created basically because of their idea that a ban is enforcing the nfc and to have an image it must have an article, and the difference with a merged list of all these articles to build a sensible, and usefull, article. Same amount of text, same amount of images. The logic from Hammersoft et al in this sort of debate, when you get away from the dogma and actually realise what the nfc is for, is priceless. They know these stubs only exist because of their flawed interpretations, but it would be too dangerous in the war to have it changed to something even resembling common sense. In the TV/Sports logo nonsense for example, I swear to God, I guarantee that he honestly believes that an article with 1 logo in it is 'more free use' than one with 5. I would love to see that argued from first principles, legal and free content philosophical, but you can't, he won't have it. It's just fundementally bad logic, but he will never have it argued that way, it's too....logical. And as said, unless you want to waste 500 hours banging your head against a brick wall, sadly he sees this rate of attrition and resultant lack of will to take it all the way to arbitration, means the actual policy is being enforced in his eyes, and their interpretations in some situations, are just correct. I've never seen a worse argument than 'Article Y has X amount of images, that's Z more than the free content allowance, per NFCC3' (which of course, never has and never will have a numeric limit). Although NFCC8 significance = there absolutely must be X number of characters of discussion of the image, and it cannot be merely of (subjective) relevance to the article weighed in the normal way, is a close second, especially when it ignores the contra view that you can have any image as long as it's for identification. Cue more perma-stubs that only exist to satisfy the rules, not common sense. It's rules lawyering ideology versus common sense, in those sorts of debates, only one side ever wins, unless a large number of people can be persuaded to step in, suitably apprised of the basic facts and reasoning, before being lawyer-bombed and worn down by repetition (never once have I seen the usual suspects ever accept any opposing argument, the battle is merely postponed). When the NFC is handled this way, then it is unsurprising that most people's instant reaction to the usual participants is to steer well clear and let Hammersoft have his Win. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Teoh Wey Yang
Hi. I just noticed you declined the speedy A7 with the comment "might be important/significant (check google scholar)". Could you elaborate on the latter part of your comment, the google scholar suggestion, particularly how citation and publication results from google scholar can be used as a reliable source for the importance of a scholar (without, i.e., meandering into the original research area). Thanks. RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To put it simple: There is no connection between those things you mention. A7 is to weed out those articles which can probably, with any amount of good faith, never be developed into a lasting article. MySpace bands, random YouTube users, "best friends forever" memorial articles, vanity autobios of random high school students, you name it. In contrast, if there is anything indicating that the subject in question might be worthy of an article (like having even minor coverage in reliable sources (on Google News for example), having mentions in books (using Google Books for example) or having published their research on notable platforms or in notable magazines (determined for example by Google Scholar)), A7 should not be applied. The same applies here because the subject of the article published in such a way. Whether they are thus to be considered notable or whether those sources can be used to write an article about them, is irrelevant for the decision of declining the speedy deletion. Sometimes a declined speedy just means "take it to AFD so people with more clue in that particular area can assess the article and see if it can be written". Regards  So Why  15:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the elaboration. I don't completely agree with you on the 'having published on notable platforms or in notable magazines' part because almost everyone employed in an academic or research capacity at a mid to upper level university has done so but, obviously, not everyone will have a wikipedia page. None of the nine criteria on WP:PROF refer to publications for a good reason. Notability should be asserted by secondary means (chairs, peers, etc.) not by an examination of the publication record. However, my quibble was only with your 'check google scholar' comment not the declined speedy (though the odds on a 28 year old non-tenure track research associate at a mid level university being important are rather low to say the least!) so ... thanks for the response! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR are additional qualifications for having an article, added to correct a perceived bias against academics, and don't replace WP:N. If someone has been the subject of an article or book by someone else, then "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" kicks in for an academic just as much as it does for anyone else. – iride  scent  00:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. Google scholar lists publications and citations but does not provide secondary sources that assert notability. Not directly anyway. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But your point is based on an outdated wording of A7: Assertion of notability is not required, importance or significance is. The standard is much lower for also this reason, i.e. so that obscure subjects that might meet the inclusion criteria but need someone with special knowledge to review, are not deleted by any admin who might not be able to assess the "worth" of the subject correctly but are brought to the larger community for review. Anyone who published dozens of papers might be important or significant even if there are no secondary sources. But again, A7 does not require that such sources exist. I have learned to err on the side of caution with those things (for example, three of the five DYK credits I got were tagged for A7 and could easily be expanded using exactly such Google services). Regards  So Why  08:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Convert bug
I checked both the article and talk page of "Rudolf Caracciola", but didn't notice any errors or reports of them. Check again and make sure the error is gone. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 14:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Weird, it's gone now. Thanks for taking a look though. Regards  So Why  15:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, there was very short term bug in precision, which probably explains the anomaly. Plastikspork (talk)&#8202;―Œ 15:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Entitlement Eric
Why was this article deleted? I fixed it so it was no disparaging and not an attack page. Can you please re-create it as it existed when I fixed it? Thanks! 207.15.63.4 (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It was not fixed. Your version still was only negative, unsourced BLP. Unless you can provide any reliable sources for all those claims, which I doubt you can, it will stay deleted. Regards  So Why  17:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk page
I was wondering if you, or one of your TPS, could have a look at User talk:Anthonydelgado1. It seems to me to be an improper use of a talk page, and the user's contributions over the past year aren't to anything but that page. Thanks in advance. Plastikspork (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's for the simple reason because they are blocked as a vandalism-only account. I have re-blocked them with talk page editing disabled because that is not really the way you should use your talk page, it's not a sandbox to use because you are not allowed to edit elsewhere. Regards  So Why  07:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that explains it. I forgot to check the block log. Best regards. Plastikspork (talk)&#8202;―Œ 15:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oversight
Hey man, sorry you didn't get appointed. I honestly think you'd have been great with the buttons. Cheers,  Dylan 620  (contribs, logs)help us! 12:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment and the comment, I appreciate it. Well, it seems people do not trust me, so there is not much I can do except trying to gain their trust. Maybe I'll run again in the future but I'll consider that if and when the question arises. Regards  So Why  12:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

scheibenwischer
I gave Scheibenwischer some polish to make it sound more English before it goes to DYK. Though I left the country a long time ago, I remember the show, so thanks for adding it here. Seb az86556 (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed, thanks for the work on it. Great job! :-) Regards  So Why  11:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK review
Hiya, I reviewed the Scheibenwischer DYK hook and it's fine; however, as it happens, there is another DYK article pointing to another instance of BR censorship on the DYK nominations page, and it's been suggested that the two hooks could be combined. Please have a look; could you liaise with the author of Die Konsequenz, user:Meco, on the DYK nominations page? Cheers,  JN 466  23:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Doh, the two of you were talking already. I didn't match your coloured signature to the blue signature up in your nomination ... so carry on. :) -- JN 466  00:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I commented on the hook discussion but I don't think combining the hooks is a good idea. They are quite different topics and share only that one fact of censorship. Regards  So Why  05:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

FJS picture
Nice improvement. Did you happen to come across that or go looking for one of him? Makes me wonder if there is a lot of this that could be done. Un sch ool 00:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, that was pure coincidence. While writing Scheibenwischer, I used de-wiki as a reference and de:Franz Josef Strauss uses this picture which is on Commons. Regards  So Why  05:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 17 August 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
 * Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
 * News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

<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

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Xaviera
Hi, I nominated Xaviera for speedy deletion as a copyvio of http://editthis.info/wiki/Xaviera_Tytler but a moment later I reversed myself after realizing the other site was a wiki. A couple of hours later, I was still kind of wondering about the license for that wiki, and I couldn't find any answers there. I happened to check the WP logs, and discovered that you had deleted the page last week as a copyvio of the same site. If it's not too much trouble, would you have another look and see if it's appropriate to delete it again? Thanks, M AN d ARAX <font color="6600FF"> •  XAЯA b ИA M  07:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Being a wiki does not mean it's okay to use the contents here. The source wiki needs to have licensed their content under both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses and there is no evidence that this is the case with that wiki, as such, it cannot be transferred here. I re-deleted the page and left the creator a note explaining why that happened. Regards  So Why  07:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! M AN d ARAX <font color="6600FF"> •  XAЯA b ИA M  07:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. If you need any other help, feel free to ask. :-) Regards  So Why  07:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sri gnana sekar
Hey there. Sorry about that! May I ask what criteria I placed that article under? I would have remembered but as you might imagine I have tagged well over a dozen pages for CSD today. :p But yeah, I admit sometimes I feel a bit of a difficulty in putting in the correct classification for CSD. E.g. I tag the page as CSD - Advertisment when there might have been a person there and his website (while it might have been better under A7 I felt that the person was more advertising the website than putting in his page on Wikipedia). But yeah, a review of the CSD page is in order hehe. Cheers! Calaka (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing serious, you tagged it G11 but it only consisted of two external links, which fits A3. Regards  So Why  12:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah fair enough! Thanks for the info. :) Calaka (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus· ƛ · 04:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are most welcome, congratulations. If you need any help with your new buttons, feel free to ask. :-) Regards  So Why  05:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Silent Circle
Hi, I should and could have just done that myself. Sorry to waste your time. Regards, <font color="blue" face="arial narrow">ascidian  | <font color="green" face="arial narrow">talk-to-me  14:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No harm done. On the positive side, you will probably do so next time and that's more than most people learn. Regards  So  Why  15:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Stalker
Thanks for stalking me! :P I appreciate all the help I can get. Cunard (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * *hides behind his cape* Sure, no thing. I appreciate it with people here, so I am more than happy if I can help others in turn :-) Regards  So Why  09:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

re: Maedin
Ball's in your court, my friend.  wadester 16  16:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Lucky for me, it's such a nice ball to have in my court. Put Requests for adminship/Maedin on your watchlist, I'll be right at it :-) Thanks for the input! Regards  So Why  19:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Already on my watchlist. :-)  wadester 16  19:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay then, I created it and I added the nom. Feel free to add your conom whenever you feel ready (i.e. you have written it) ;-) Regards  So Why  19:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅  wadester 16  19:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for help with A7
Thanks for the detailed and helpful response, with all the additional places I could look, re criterion A7 on speedy deletion. Very helpful! -- Ishel99 (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. If you need further help, just ask. Regards  So Why  07:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Good luck
SoWhy, I offer you my best wishes whilst you are studying for your Staatsexamen. In my view this is a very well-thought out approach by the German education/career system and I have met many Germans who have studied and passed. I will be watching to hear of your success also.-- VirtualSteve need admin support? 11:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, I will do my best but lucky for me it's only the free try that does not count in case I fail. I do have to say though that I do not share your view on that system, it's a huge amount of stuff to learn that you will never ever need again, which is imho a waste of time. But I need to go back to learn all that unimportant stuff that will probably be in the tests, so thanks again. I hope I can report success within the next year  Regards  So  Why  11:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Warren_Rovetch
Hello and good morning. I saw you declined the speedy of this article and several others by the same creator. Before I go for AfD, could you explain your reasoning so I can get a better understanding? I don't see any claim of notability. I saw in the history you also declined the speedy from User:Wuzwazdat who is a very successful speedy nominator. I understand the reasons to decline his speedy, though, it wasn't advertising. Would you support an AfD for not meeting WP:BIO and declined on principal or do you think the article should stay? Thanks, v/r--TParis00ap (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that A7, despite a common misconception, is not about notability (see my essay common A7 mistakes for further details). Any claim of any importance or significance is enough and the article provides that (and a quick Google News search reveals a couple of reliable sources covering the subject). Whether this is enough to pass WP:BIO or not is irrelevant to speedy deletion under A7. If you cannot establish notability after trying to fix the article (per WP:BEFORE), you are free to take it to WP:AFD. I have no interest of pursuing such an AFD though myself. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask. :-) Regards  So Why  12:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I've never seen WP:BEFORE...before. I must have skipped over it when reading the page.  Thanks for pointing it out.  If it were to go to an AfD though, doesn't it fall on the responsibility of the one trying to keep the article to prove it's notability; not the nominator to disprove it?  I am not sure where this policy is since I am fairly sure I read it in another AfD that I cannot find.  Also, I understand where you get your rationale for A7 because it specifically says "any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance" but lower down on the page on the list of non-criteria, it says under G4 "Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are eligible for speedy deletion only if the article does not give a reasonable indication of why the subject might be important or significant."  Essentially, I believe these two contradict each other.--TParis00ap (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As with anything, it's always for the one making the claim to prove it. So yeah, if someone !votes keep, they need to show why it should be kept. But WP:BEFORE serves to avoid nominations of articles that are covering clearly notable subjects but just not in a state to show it and thus tell the nominator to just fix it instead. If you take something to AFD without even attempting to rectify the problem, you will likely cause multiple people more work by having to endure the AFD.
 * As for A7, I see no contradiction. The non-criteria part just emphasis that something that fails notability guidelines needs to furthermore have no indication of importance/significance to be speedy deleted. Could you explain why you think they contradict each other? Regards  So Why  13:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I getcha. That makes sense now.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Maedin
Hi SoWhy. I noticed that the talk page there was a redlink. Didn't know if you wanted to copy her contrib stats there or not. Doesn't matter to me, I just looked through them manually, but a lot of noms seem to do that copypasta thing for the talk page. Cheers. — Ched : ?  13:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I have no idea how people usually do that So feel free to do it (and/or tell me how^^) Regards  So  Why  14:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just pasted from the soxred tool, I spaced the contribs so they ended up in the gray boxes, but didn't get all the formatting quite perfect either ;( ... I'll clean it up a bit later if I have time, but at least it's there for now. ;) Cheers. — Ched :  ?  14:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Shadow Dancer: The Life and Crimes of Geoffrey Marcus Lindman
This is to let you know that I removed your PROD on this article in order to include it in this AfD with two other related articles. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Beeblebrox 2
Hey there SoWhy. I was wondering if you might take a look at this RfA. At RfA 1, the candidate had a bit of a problem with speedy deletions; I wondered if you might take a look at his more recent deleted taggings to see if he has improved. Thanks, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 12:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I was about to do that anyway, I just wanted to complete the chapter of my study book before making a break ;-) I had a look but the worrying traits are based on some hastiness and a mistake when handling A3, nothing I would believe Beeblebrox to fail to address, so I supported. Hope that helps :-) Regards  So Why  13:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, SoWhy! <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 16:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are, as usual, most welcome :-) Regards  So Why  19:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that
I think the Taymaishu RfA was still live when I clicked the edit button, but I didn't see an ec when I saved, so I could be wrong. I know it was live when I was reading it. -- SPhilbrick  T  11:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. It's a wiki, things can be undone quickly. :-) Regards  So Why  11:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of WikiBlame
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Killiondude (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Spooks Move
Thank you for your advice, I will keep it in mind. I didn't mean to be belligerent but sometimes I percieve that kind of comment as disrespect. Anyways, Thanks Again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaelen S. (talk • contribs) 10:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Speaking of advice, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages such as this one using the ~ (or simply clicking on the [[File:Button sig.png]] button in the toolbar). Also, new messages on any talk page usually go at the bottom of the page (you can use the "new section" tab next to the "edit" button for this. Regards  So Why  10:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and Need Help
Hello SoWhy

I am very new to wikipedia and thanks for declining a deletion on my page on Naval Aviation Museum. It was just that I made an information box and then needed more time to think about my article about the museum thoroughly. so thanks for that.

I also had another question. I have some great phots of India, Canada and Netherlands, that I wanted to give to wiki commons. However, when I upload file in wiki commons; in the information box; under author, I can only write my name. I want to write my name but also when they click on my name it goes to my Flickr page, like how some people have it. Can you please tell me how to do this and also how to go back and do it for the one's I already uploaded. Thanks --Theoffice89 (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all: Did you take them and are you prepared to release your images under the CC-BY-SA license required both on Commons and on Flickr? If you are, next please make sure they are visible on flickr with the license correctly. Then, you can use either the upload form with Flickr presets or this handy tool to do the upload. As for those already uploaded, image description pages can be edited just like all other pages, so you can just edit them and change the info accordingly. Regards  So Why  19:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you very much. I appreciate it to know that others share my "stubbornness" in those things. Regards  So  Why  20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Why the rename from RISCOS Ltd to RISCOS?
Hi, I noticed that you'd renamed this article. Could you comment on the discussion at the article's talk page? Thanks Hertzsprung (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Day
Congratulations, SoWhy! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, August 28, 2009! Keep up the great work! Note: You could also receive the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week! If you wish, you can add to your userpage.

Happy editing!

<font color="#9966CC">[midnight <font color="#00CC00">comet]  [talk]  00:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I appreciate this more than you might think. Regards  So  Why  07:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats! -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs)help us! 10:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Grateful thanks and something shiny for you, ;-)

 * You are too humble then, I just wrote what is true, nothing biased about that. I am more than happy to see you have succeeded this well. Come back at any time when you want to hear your first "lesson" as an admin ;-) Regards  So Why  12:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You were very eloquent, you see, and confident, and you mentioned all the right things. It was well-rounded and spot-on . . . and ok, said nice things about me, too!  But it was more the how than just the what, ;-)  <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din \talk 12:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad you liked it. I feared it wouldn't be good enough Regards  So  Why  13:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

In njilly
Hello SoWhy, thank you for your message. My apologies are in order if I've used a template incorrectly. To my knowledge, I have only ever used a "speedy delete" template once before, and tried to provide a rationale at that time, but it did not appear to affix itself to the banner, so I simply assumed it wasn't absolutely necessary. I will make certain to read the documentation you've provided. Thanks again, and have yourself a pleasant day :) WikHead (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It was correct, we just have a couple of strictly defined criteria that you can (and should) use when doing so. For example, in this case db-g7 or db-author would have been the ones to use. It's nothing important but it's good to know. Regards  So Why  19:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A7 speedy criteria
I was surprised by the heading of the message above on your talk page, but I see it was a test! Actually, it is the subject I came to discuss: some time ago, you declined two db-band speedies of mine. That worried me, because I like to get these things right, and it sent me back to re-read your WP:10CSD and WP:A7M, and there are two points I would like to discuss:


 * I can see that with Punky Fresh the competition they won was enough to lift them out of A7, but what indication of importance or significance did you see in The coppertones?


 * In WP:A7M I am doubtful about "is a teacher at a notable university" and "Ph.D. from a notable university" as exemption from A7. As any high school is considered notable, so presumably is any university - do you really mean that any lecturer or PhD escapes A7? Even if you mean notable university in a more restricted sense, I am still doubtful. As a test case, I offer Michael Bodhi Green, who I would have A7-ed before re-reading WP:A7M. After reading it, I AfD-ed him here, but he does seem to me thoroughly undistinguished - no presence in Google Scholar at all. Would you have declined an A7 for him?

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, let's see. I think for the Coppertones, it was the existence of GNews hits that lead me to covert the speedy to prod. As for Michael Bodhi Green, I'd probably have declined an A7 because the article claims some borderline significance and I do not like speedy deleting things where people tried to make it meet our guidelines. But I do agree that an A7 would not have been incorrect on it, I just wouldn't have done it. Regards  So Why  18:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Digital Taxidermy
I was going to AfD this, but then I thought I would check with you first. The taxidermy article mentions "digital taxidermy" but it calls it "reproduction taxidermy". Do you think this "technique" warrants its own article? <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din \talk 19:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not merge the content to taxidermy and then turn it into a redirect? Regards  So Why  20:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I will.  <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din \talk 20:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Caratsch.jpg
I really hate to keep bringing this up, but could you please ask Stahlkocher for some more info on the above image? It doesn't look like the vague info we have now will cut it, and despite quite a bit of searching I've been unable to find the original file at any "DB-Archiv". Could you please ask him for clarification? Cheers, Aptery  gial  13:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to but some %&§!&/$§ de-wiki admin decided to hard-block the whole IP range my company uses, so I am not allowed to write on de-wiki from here. I'll try and get one of them to IP exempt me and then I can ask him again. Regards  So Why  13:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I got unblocked and asked him. He said that he did not recall the details but I asked him what the "DB-Archiv" is, maybe we can figure it out if we know who to ask. Regards  So Why  14:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose you are an accredited journalist..? :) Aptery  gial  00:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I'm only a lowly law student. But I am sure you can find one willing to help within our user base. Good luck! :-) Regards  So Why  08:37, 31 August 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;">: 24 August 2009 ==


 * News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners
 * Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

<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

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle
I turned on Twinkle in my monobook.js and it worked ok, but there is a thing or two I don't like about it. I decided to tweak the settings, so I loaded the full configuration and deleted (or left blank) the parts I didn't want. Now it isn't working at all. Do you have any idea what I need to do to fix it? Thanks! <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din \talk 08:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I fear I cannot help you here. I use Twinkle only for one module but I don't like it otherwise (too much stuff I do not need). So you could do it like me and only install individual modules for example. But if you want to try the whole thing, I would advise you to ask who is an active dev for Twinkle (and one of my valued talk page stalkers). :-) Regards  So  Why  08:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll see what she has to say! Thanks, :-)  <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din \talk 09:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Amalthea is male, although I admit I made the same incorrect conclusion at first as well ;-) Regards  So Why  09:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh!! I'm so sorry!  I just thought that Amalthea is a girl's name and so . . . oops.  My mistake   <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din \talk 09:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Pfft. There are no girls on the interwebs. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 10:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What about meeeee?!!? *sniffle* <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din \talk 10:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are one of the (rather few, unfortunately) exceptions to the rule. Regards  So  Why  10:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion templates for CSDs F4 and F6
I closed this here. Since you are more active in the CSDs, could you do the move/redirect per your suggested solution? Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 06:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking me but I think I will ask to do it, he is better with templates and such and also, it was his idea mainly to make such a change. I hope you don't mind :-) Regards  So  Why  06:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  11:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

People-Centered Economic Development
This is a clear and blatant case of self promotion. Jeff Mowatt and his associate Terry Hall;man are using Wikipedia to self promote their "company" which goes by the same name. All references on the page created by Jeff Mowatt link back to self initiated and published articles. People Centered Economic Development (Ukraine) has no assets, not offices and no investments in Ukraine. It has no proved successes or direct involvement in any Economic development project in Ukraine. It exist in a virtual word of the internet. No independent verification or referees could be provided. Independent reviews have all come to the same conclusion. Terry Hallman the "director" of the company claims that he has c`lose associations with US president Bill Clinton and US Aid. US Aid deny any association with Mr Hallman Jeff Mowatt or their company. Mr Hallman was expelled from the UK as being an Economic migrant and has been living in Ukraine pretending he is a successful director of an international economic development company, using Wikipedia and other publications as a defacto authoristaion/verification of what is otherwise unverifable. I suggest you think again before you bring Wikiedia into disrepute.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.40.8 (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I do nothing of such kind, but your attitude is extremely unhelpful to accomplishing your goals. This article is neither umambiguously promotional nor does is lack sufficient claims of importance or significance and as such, speedy deletion of the article is not without our policy. If you want to argue for deletion, you can register an account and list it at articles for deletion. Regards  So Why  06:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A NobodyMy talk 04:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, but I'm not American. My Labor Day was on May 1st Thanks anyway, but my day will consist of a maximum amount of learning, so no holiday for me... Regards  So  Why  07:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy declined...
...for Ryan McKee. You said "Playing for a notable team indicates importance/significance"--but the guy doesn't play for the team, he plays on the practice squad. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But it's a notable practice squad. And from a quick GNews search, he might be notable even, see here for example. Enough arguments imho to give the article the attention of a regular deletion process, don't you think? Regards  So Why  13:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry SoWhy, I don't--I didn't know practice squads came in notable and non-notable flavors... The coverage found by Google News doesn't impress me much either, but I guess that's why you have buttons and I don't. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Everything comes in those flavors, doesn't it? After all, the general notability guideline applies to everything equally and a practice squad with multiple, third-party sources covering it can be equally notable than the team itself, even if it does not have an article (at the moment). And as such, being connected with them can indicate significance enough for A7. I will not contest that notability itself problem does not exist but A7 does not require it. Regards  So Why  16:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK notice
Hi, SoWhy. I responded to your note about Love Hunter at the DYK page. If my answer is insufficient, please let me know. Thanks! Dekkappai (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yarrr
Freundlichen Grüßen SoWhy. There's been some concern at the low level of RfAs recently, and one of the outcomes has been the establishment of WP:VETTING. The idea is that experienced editors with knowledge of RfA give realistic feedback to would-be candidates, so that those who would have a rough time at RfA are spared the trauma, and those who would be good candidates but aren't confident that they'd have a chance are encouraged to run. The process needs experienced RfA observers to work, and since you often give good reviews to candidates and have influential !votes, I wonder if you would consider watchlisting the page and contributing feedback from time to time? Mahalo, Skomorokh  22:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll give it a look later when I get back home. Regards  So Arr!  Let go plunderin! 09:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

unprotection of Barack Obama FAQ
There's a request for unprotection on a page you indef full-protected. Do you mind handling it? I assume it's okay to move to semi-protection, but I'd rather leave it to you. tedder (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm currently not at home and can only go online for a few minutes to check my mails. Could you please handle it? I am confident that you can handle it just fine :-) Regards  So Arr!  Let go plunderin! 09:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've lowered it to indef semi protection given your agreement. All the best. :) ~ mazca  talk 10:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Metaxourgio
Indeed, it does makes a useful redirect, but we should move its history to Metaxourgeio. This involves deleting (and restoring later). My choice to ask for deletion was as you pointed out, wrong.--FocalPoint (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you have pointed out from where the content was merged in your edit summary and Metaxourgio still exists, there is no need for a history merge here. The attribution history is not broken this way. Regards  So Why  17:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, this also, is correct. --FocalPoint (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Aroha
This word does not appear in the target. That should be a valid reason to delete this. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe it should; unfortunately, our criteria for speedy deletion are quite clear that it can't be done with older redirects (see criterion R3). The reason for this is that an old redirect most likely had a good reason it was not deleted sooner, in this case for example that it's a likely typo. You can request deletion at redirects for deletion if you think it should be done. Regards  So Why  08:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

 * From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
 * News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

<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 &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you (undeletion)
Hi there, thanks for the undeleted articles. Now they are proper stubs I think (the German articles are much longer, but mostly unsourced, so I don't translate them). If I have more time I want to stub some more politicians from Hamburg. So I will definitely ask you. Cheers. Sebastian scha. (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, any time. I saved a few of those myself while on CSD patrol, so if you need any help, feel free to ask :-) Regards  So Why  12:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Need for new service award
I noticed that we are coming up to a point where we will need a new service award so I though up a design and created a template which you can see below. Give me an idea of what you think.

Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 06:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it, although you need to have a corresponding book of knowledge for it (like the "book of all knowledge with secret appendix" maybe?) if you plan to have it on Service awards. On the other hand, I wonder who would be able to display it. You would need (let's say) 6 years on Wikipedia and 50,000 edits and I don't know if there is anyone who meets this criteria (there are a couple with more than 50,000 edits (see here) but I don't think anyone of them is here for 6 years). Having a new award is a great thing but if one knows beforehand that there will be no recipients, it makes the whole idea kind of pointless, don't you think? Regards  So Why  08:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User:The Anome passes most tests of those prone to edit- and daysofservicecountitis. :) Amalthea  08:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take it back then ;-)  So Why  08:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I will go ahead and look into creating a extra book of knowledge and possibly a ribbon equivalent as well.

Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 14:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Possible Service Awards

I have followed your advice and created a Book of Knowledge with a secret appendix, a new template for the default service award and a ribbon equivalent, all of which you can see if you follow the link above. Let me know what you think. By the way, if I do end up adding it to the list of service awards I might need some simple assistance in order to figure out how to add it to the table.

Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 05:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you should propose your idea at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards to gather more input. Personally, I like it (although the ribbon looks a bit strange). Regards  So Why  09:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Danke schön!
Thanks for removing some rather less polite German from my talk page. Favonian (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. Apparently, someone is pissed that their article was deleted at de-wiki and decided to go on a pointless hate spree against those responsible. Some people do have too much time on their hands... Regards  So Why  16:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)