User talk:SoWhy/Archive 19

Barbara Rosenthal article
Barbara Rosenthal article We are pretty surethat there arent anymore peacock terms there, so please either point them outor take off the tag please. And we think we have established notability alot due to the New York Times and NYArts and Village Voice and MoMA Dadabase, etc, so eiher please tell us what needs more references or please take off that tag, too. And in trying to matke the lists seemm less like a resume, we see in the guidelines that we can use bullet lists, so we are confused here,too. P lease give an example of where you would make a change and what it should be changed to please.Semmasemma7 (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Semmasemma7 (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Service Award
Sounds great, I will go ahead and add the modifications. By the way, where do you come up with all these ideas for service award additions. It is really quite impressive.

Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 22:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

re- the Riff Raff (band) current uk band - page deletion
Good Afternoon,

I wrote a wikipedia article on a uk band called the Riff Raff, i tried to keep it as far from an advert or infringement on any wikipedia articles but i think i failed pretty badly.

Many apologies that i created some extra hassle and work for you. The band are actually getting big now and have been accredited by the national press, BBC Radio stations and many magazine articles and gig reviews. I have done them an injustice in failing to create the page within the guide lines.

I think the main problem with my article was that it read like a big advert, would you be able to help me a little and try and trim it down so it still reads nicely but isnt any infringement of guidelines.



I think there maybe a few other ' Riff Raff' s who may have taken offense that a new band by that moniker has been succesful over recent years. There is a guy in America- a rapper i believe who is also using the name. And there are obvious references back to one of Billy Braggs first bands.

If you search Riff Raff on google - as far as im aware the band in question comes up as the main first link, also there are times newspaper articles and magazine references all over the place that i sourced and hyperlinked ( Probably very badly)

Again im sorry for the extra hassle and work this has caused you and i guess the main thing im asking for is some advice and help :)

Humbly

Speedy Gonzales's cousin

xxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedygonzalescousin (talk • contribs) 13:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was deleted because the page creator removed all content which is usually considered a deletion request. You are free to create a new article at this place but please read our relevant notability guideline first. You can read Your first article to know how to create this article or use our article wizard that has a step-by-step way to do it. In case you need further help, you can place helpme on your talk page together with a question or use the help desk (or of course, you can just ask me). PS: Remember to add ~ on talk pages (such as this one) after your comments to add your name and time stamp automatically. Regards  So Why  18:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Article: Powder Game
Sorry to not be from an NPOV, but this is no "insignificant game." It's parent website has over 70,000 daily pageviews. I simply request permission to recreate this article since the previous versions have certainly been better than the "stubs" you will find with a click of "Random Page."

Please unprotect this page; in my opinion it should exist for the 70,000 users to view whenever they wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.120.192 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In order to not be deleted, it needs to indicate, why it's important or significant. Pageviews alone do not constitute such a indication as many pages have far more pageviews and still are not eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia (see also our relevant notability guideline). If you can give me a reason (aside from pageviews or "other things are worse") as to why this particular game is noteworthy or, better yet, provide a single third-party reliable source (not blogs, forums etc.) that covers this game, I will be happy to unprotect and restore the article for you to work on. Regards  So Why  08:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

wow
i can't believe an article about the guy who played danny tanner on the pilot episodes of full house really has this much drama. ain't nobody givin' a shit about john posey. do you people seriously have nothing more important to worry about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.5.128 (talk • contribs)


 * Could you please elaborate as to what you refer to and better even, how I can help you? Regards  So Why  07:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

 * Opinion essay: White Barbarian
 * Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
 * Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
 * News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving files
Hey. What script are you using to preform those file pagemoves? Seems like it would be quite efficient. :) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Splarka/ajaxfilemove.js, I'm guessing. Cheers, Amalthea  20:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Amalthea proves to be a helpful stalker again and again. Yes, it is indeed this script. If you happen to wonder about a similar script again, my monobook.js has comments on every script, i.e. what they do. Regards  So Why  20:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, stalkers and SoWhy. I stole two scripts from SoWhy's monobook :-) tedder (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like it is highly useful to check out others' talk pages once in a while. Highly useful. Thanks! NW ( Talk ) 22:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Adam mowafi
Hi, this is one you deleted revs from, so I (and TW) thought you might be interested. Kevin (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

 * New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
 * Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
 * News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the CSD
Thanks for deleting the tagged page So You Want to be an Airline Pilot?, I was confused between G1 And G11, As it had both elements, So I chose G1, I will read up on the guidelines again to refresh my head on the guidelines, It's been so long since my recent contributions. Arc tic Fox 13:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Valley life
Hi there and thanks for the note about the CSD status of the above article. About the GFDL, it appears that the source website of the (copy-pasted) article is under GFDL, but not the CG show itself. Thanks! E Wing (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hence I said using WP:CP to review it. Since the source of the text is claiming it to be GFDL, it's not a case where G12 should be used without further discussion. Regards  So Why  15:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/WeeChat (2nd nomination)
Hi SoWhy

At least two editors addressed the cited coverage claimed to be significant, independent and in reliable sources. Your close as "keep" rather than "no consensus" is not supported by the discussion.

Bongo  matic  12:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, only you did. The other editor, as I wrote in my rationale, addressed it only so far to say that it's just not notable despite it but failed to address why these sources fail to establish notability. All the others completely failed to address them. As such, the numbers might have been in favor of deletion but the arguments were not. I have addressed in my rationale that both you and have taken them into consideration - but only you really disputed the notability despite the sources. DustFormsWords' comment is about a missing assertion of notability in the article which is irrelevant to the outcome. You are welcome to take this to deletion review, if you think my rationale is unsupported by discussion, of course. Regards  So  Why  17:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for ERC (IRC client)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of ERC (IRC client). 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. Tim Song (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Naim (chat program)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Naim (chat program). 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. Tim Song (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

WT:CSD#Second opinion
Hi, you haven't replied to my response to you on WT:CSD. Please consider doing so. cheers, Rd232 talk 08:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me know...
...if you want a co-. I've already watchlisted the spot, so I'm good either way. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are the only person I would have asked to do the honors actually. You are working the same areas and probably know much more about his work than I do. In fact, I would be more than happy to let you be the main nominator and me being the co-nominator "only", if you like. Regards  So  Why  13:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And of course I get a spate of work call as soon as I leave my note. :P Off to attend to it now. I'll read your nom statement and then figure which position would be best. I've never done a full "nom" before, and you are ever so much more cognizant of the ways and means of RfA than I am. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no hurry, so don't worry. I might spent more time at RFA but you know the user's edits probably better than I do, so you can write a more clueful nom statement than I could. So it's purely your choice, you can place your nom before or after mine, I won't mind either way. I have told MLauba to expect it before he transcludes the RFA. :-) Regards  So Why  15:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have nommed, though I feel somewhat clumsy about it, as the first time I wrote a grant proposal. :D I imagine eventually one gets used to the protocols there. Hopefully, I have meet the needs of the job. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You did a wonderful job on your nomination statement if I may say so. :-) Regards  So Why  15:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Practical question: who transcludes? Myself or one of you two? MLauba (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * nevermind, I just read the instructions. :)MLauba (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Transclude whenever you feel ready. Good luck :-) Regards  So Why  11:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And off we go. :) MLauba (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Lumencraft deletion
Hi there You have deleted our company entry "Lumencraft" with the reason that you can not see any significance or as to why Lumencraft is important. Our products have been featured on TV, on popular mechanics and our items have turned into collectors items with collectors paying many times the original value. We have always valued the Wikipedia entry since it allowed people to get a good overview of what and who we are, how we are unique and special - this is especially true if someone receives one of our products as a gift. Wikipedia allowed them to get an unbiased very neutral view.

The article in question had lots of information, pictures and valuable information. Compared to other flashlight manufacturers that all are doing more or less the same (and are listed not deleted), our products stand out in many ways, some love the artistic design, other love performance, but most everyone can see that it is very different. Right now we are one of the only very high end manufacturer for pocket flashlights. the same way there is a high end market for pens (montblanc, waterman etc), for watches (patek philippe) for fashion (Versace), for cigars, for wine, etc, there is a high end market for Flashlights. With our USD 500 / light price tag, with global reviews, tv appearances, we are one of the top brands in the flashlight industry.

Typically our products are pre ordered, we have individually assigned serial numbers, so our goal on Wikipedia is not sales, but reference. Show people that there is a high end segment to flashlights, that it can be an item of art, an item of fetish. We believe that the products we have created and the feedback we have seen (http://lumencraft.net/Testimonials.htm) worldwide would warrant an inclusion in Wikipedia, especially in comparison to other companies you have on there.

As a result it is hard for us to follow why you would delete the high end segment/reference of an item like Flashlights. With the elimination of Lumencraft, there is no other company/brand that represents the high end luxury segment of flashlights.

I would welcome if the article could be undeleted. Then if you can provide me with hints as to what should be added or what was missing, so I can add the information so that a reference can remain within wikipedia. This is less about us as a company but about leaving references to the high end segment about an industry (flashlights).

Best regards

Walter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobile1 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct, I made a mistake in this case. I have restored the article to it's previous state but I would advise you not to edit it yourself as you have a conflict of interest. Regards  So Why  17:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Heinrich Roller
Hello! Your submission of Heinrich Roller at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 23:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorting out the DYK queue
Hi SoWhy,

Thanks for sorting out the problem with the current hooks on DYK. BTW I reported the problem at both Wikipedia talk:Did you know and WP:ERRORS but wasn't sure which was the correct one. Mikenorton (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem and don't worry. In such cases, reporting it at both places is quite sensible as one cannot be sure where people look. You might consider reporting it at WP:ANI next time though if admin attention is urgent because that is where you will surely have the fastest response. Regards  So Why  15:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, maybe next time (if that ever happens) I'll try all three :-). Mikenorton (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

EphBlog
Two requests: 1) Could you e-mail me a copy of the EphBlog article that you deleted? 2) Could you add a few more sentences to the explanation of your deletion decision at Articles for deletion/EphBlog? (I am not looking to get in an argument with you over the decision. I just want to make sure that I understand your reasoning so that, if more independent reliable sources mention EphBlog, I and the 5 other editors that voted to keep the article, might be able to better judge whether the discussion might be re-opened.) Thanks for your time. David.Kane (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) (Edit: Removed questions that did not pertain to your comments. My mistake.) David.Kane (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry on that. I thought I had, I usually do. I'll add it now. As for the copy, you want it per e-mail or should I userfy it for you, so you can work on it on-wiki? Regards  So Why  18:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * userfy would be great. Thanks for your help. David.Kane (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. It's at User:David.Kane/EphBlog. Regards  So Why  18:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. I would like to give you some feedback on this decision. My purpose is not to get in a debate with you about it here. Instead, my goals are, first, to give you constructive criticism so that your future decisions are even better and, two, to encourage you to provide more detail to your explanation. Such details will make any future deletion review and/or attempts to improve the article more productive. Here are some specific quotes that I think should be clarified:


 * "no other reliable sources have provided any non-trivial coverage of the subject" --- Did you consult those sources? I do not think that you did. As you can see from the discussion, I offered to send anyone copies of the relevant articles. (One might argue that you should not be expected to read the sources themselves. That would be reasonable. But then you should make clear in your write-up that you only consulted the titles of the articles.) Consider the specific example of a the Berkshire Eagle article "Williams College Environmental efforts met with mixed reactions." If you read the article, you will see that the half of the "mixed reactions" are from EphBlog. EphBlog is a main topic of the article.


 * "coverage of the blog itself rather than what the blog reported" --- You should ground your conclusions in the specific language of the relevant Wikipedia guideline. No distinction is made in those guidelines between a blog itself and what the blog reports. The criteria have to do with reliable sources, significant coverage and so on. If the New York Times wrote an article on all the news items that EphBlog has "reported" over the last 6 years, then surely you would agree that this article alone made EphBlog notable, even if it was almost all about "what the blog reported?"


 * "currently it is borderline" --- I think that is a fair assessment. But, first, in a borderline case, wouldn't a conclusion of "no consensus" be warranted? You write as if there are only two possible answers: keep or delete and that this close call is just on the side of delete. But, in between keep and delete there is a wide middle ground of no consensus. You should make clear, not just why this is not a keep but why no consensus was not the right answer. Five separate editors wanted to keep the article. Is it really fair for you to conclude that the consensus was delete?


 * If reliable, third-party sources* --- Why isn't the Williams Record reliable? Why isn't it 3rd party? The Record and EphBlog are totally separate organizations. We may be associated with Williams, but no more than two newspapers in a city are both associated with that city. The New York Times is am independent source when it comes to the New York Post just as the Williams Record is an independent source when it comes to EphBlog.

Again, my goal is not to get into a discussion with you in this space about these topics. Reasonable people can disagree. But I think that your write-up would have been much better if it had specifically addressed using the language in Wikipedia guidelines the strongest points made by the editors who sought to keep the article. Thanks for your time. David.Kane (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, the problem is that our notability guideline specifies that the coverage need to "address the subject directly in detail" (emphasis added). None of the sources talk about the blog as a blog but about what the blog has reported, i.e. only indirectly. One can not always use exactly the language used in the policies and guidelines and one does not have to because the spirit is the important thing to follow. And the notability guideline is quite clear that coverage needs to be both substantial and directly about the subject. The sources you mention fail to meet this criteria and consensus at the AFD reflected on this. Yes, it's borderline but it's on the other side of the border, i.e. it was consensus to delete but can possibly be recreated once better sources exist. But borderline does not mean "no consensus" - "borderline but not notable yet" is a !vote, just as "borderline but notable" is a !vote. But consensus existed in this case, so there was no way it could have been closed as "no consensus". As for the Williams Record, I think the correct comparison would be to compare The New York Times to the International Herald Tribune. They are different newspapers but both are owned by The New York Times Company; as such, one reporting about the other has to be regarded with suspicion and it's quite possible to say that the NY Times is not a source independent of the subject because they are affiliated by having the same owner. The same suspicion needs to be exerted with the Williams Record newspaper, i.e. it can be a source for an article about something affiliated with the university but it cannot be regarded as totally independent in judgment. Also, it is the only source that really covered the subject and the general consensus at the AFD was that a single source is not enough to establish notability. Regards  So Why  17:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "only source that really covered the subject" --- Could you please clarify whether or not you read the articles that were cited? If you did not, then how do you know the extent to which they "really covered" EphBlog? David.Kane (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The closing admin's job is not to re-assess the sources but to assess the discussion. His or her job is to close the discussion according to the consensus, not according to their own assessment of the sources, the article or their own personal opinion. The consensus was to delete, so I closed it accordingly. If you feel it was incorrect, deletion review is where you can request a review of the decision. Regards  So Why  09:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with your first two sentences above. Again, my goal is to try to provide constructive criticism. It is very helpful if closing admins provide more evidence when making claims like the "consensus was to delete." For example, you could list the 5 editors who wanted to keep by name. You could also list the editors who wanted to delete. I think that this would have been helpful in this case because many of the delete votes were cast early in the process, before the article was substantially improved. I think that, post improvement, there were more keep votes than delete votes. A better summary of the debate would make that clear. Also, it is now clear than neither you nor (I believe) any of the delete voting editors checked the underlying sources. (I know that at least 2 keep votes did since I sent them copies of some of the articles.) So, it is unclear how they determined which sources "really covered the subject." David.Kane (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Francia 20 franchi.JPG
Hi soWhy, I've tagged in the file a deletion request, because of copyrights in design of French francs (because I had to do the same with my own pictures of French francs according with I was explained. I think that's fair, if my pictures are not allowed in Commons because of copyright reasons, I understand nobody's pictures are allowed. Thanks in advance and sorry for the inconvenients caused to you.--89.7.129.181 (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot disagree. I have just declined a deletion request locally since the file is not here. If it is indeed copyrighted, it has no place on Commons, that much is true. Regards  So Why  17:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

 * From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
 * Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
 * Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
 * News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
 * Dispatches: Sounds
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi there.Thanks for informing me on my article's appearence on Did You Know ? page. --Ego dupe (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to thank me, it's an automated process. I just approved it to appear on the Main Page, hence my name is displayed below the message. Regards  So Why  11:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Q1 and Q2
There's an extra (pictured) in both of these, so can you fix that?--Giants 27 ( c |  s ) 13:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That I left you that message about being more careful comes to haunt me I see ;-) Thanks for pointing it out :-) Regards  So Why  13:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletions
You recently declined my speedy deletion on Zak Kustok. This is not the first time I've seen you decline speedy deletions with comments like "Decline speedy - Subject might be important/significant (check Google News) / use WP:PROD or WP:AFD (CSDH)" - I am certain that there are many admins (probably the majority) that would have deleted this. I'm interested in why you think someone should check google news - the criterion make no mention of this and you're the only admin I've come across who seems to require this. I also find your edit summary "simple expand" to be somewhat uncivil as, to me, it appears to be a thinly veiled attack on me. As it happened I had checked google news before adding the speedy and completely disagree with your assessment that it was a "simple expand". There were a lot of hits and most of them appeared to be trivial coverage in the form of game reports. So I missed one that wasn't but that's no reason to have a go at me for not finding it, especially given that the criteria put me under no obligation to even look. I am happy to admit that the source you added is enough to avoid speedy but it's easy to be wise with hindsight. I will also admit that you are perfectly in your right to remove the speedy but am some what worried that you are applying standards not supported by consensus as well as leaving edit summaries that suggest other editors aren't doing what they're meant to do. Dpmuk (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct that WP:CSD does not require this, however both the deletion and the editing policy emphasize that improvement should be preferred to deletion whenever possible (see also WP:BEFORE regarding AFD). As such, I have decided to decline all A7 requests where there is at least a possibility that deletion is not the wisest thing to do and Google News hits are usually such a sign (see also my essay WP:A7M on further signs). As you say, it's within my right as an admin to do so and it is usually a good way to avoid WP:BITEing newbies who tried to add potentially encyclopedic subjects but failed to provide sources and everything in their first attempt. And, last but not least, I hope that this way some taggers will consider the same approach. Half of the DYKs I have written were previously tagged for speedy deletion for example and could easily be expanded.
 * As for the edit summary, I am sorry that you (mis)understood it this way. I have never in my time here attacked anyone personally and I will not start now. No, the "simple" simply referred to the fact that the text I added is quite short and stub-by and only served to provide any text at all. It was not a comment on how easy or how hard it might have been to add that source. Regards  So Why  13:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I hadn't occurred to me that you meant 'simple' in that way - maybe "small expansion" or similar would cause less confusion - not that I would consider it a major problem if I'm the only one that has so far misunderstood.  My concern with your declines isn't so much your reasoning (with which I broadly agree) but the fact that your edit summary could be read as implying such checks are necessary especially when coming from an admin and as such may confuse those slightly more experienced editors that are starting out on new page patrolling / speedy tagging.  I remove many speedy tags myself and it's quite rare for me to add one as I agree that many articles can be expanded to a reasonable standard (I have one DYK from an article that was speedied multiple times).  With this particular case I am probably slightly biased towards deletion as there are many out there that seem to think that college football players / coaches / seasons etc are inherently notable and create many such articles despite community consensus not supporting their notability - there are probably hundreds of articles out there in this field that I (and in many cases probably the community) think should be deleted but it's a big job to AfD them all given the requirements of WP:BEFORE.  In this case I think that someone has assumed that all Northwestern quarterbacks would be notable as many articles were created at the same time so I probably leant towards deletion more heavily than normal. Dpmuk (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, "small" would have been better, you are right. I must have subconsciously translated from my native tongue when adding the summary (despite my best efforts, I fear I sometimes mix up similar words, so bear with me ).
 * As for the decline, I see what you mean. I have tweaked the rationale I used with that article to hopefully avoid that people get such an impression. If you have any suggestion for further improvement, please tell me. Regards  So Why  14:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd never have guessed that English was not your first language - I'm once again amazed at how good many European's English is and disappointed by how dreadful the British are at learning other languages. Thanks for the change, we'll see how things go.  Dpmuk (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment. Yeah, I'm actually German but I grew up with the net, so I learnt English as a necessity (and I do love that language much more than my native one). Anyway, if you need anything else, please do not hesitate to ask. Regards  So Why  07:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Emily Cummins Entry
Thanks for your reply regarding the Speedy Deletion request.

Is there another option open to me regarding having the article deleted? She's not happy having the article on here when other people can maliciously or jokingly make changes that may reflect her in a bad light.

Some of the remarks that I had to remove cast aspirtions on her work etc in a way that though said in jest could have adveresly affected her.

She was somewhat upset at the comments saying that she used to be a black woman and that she had attacked a child.

I do not see why it should not be possible to find a way to delete the article to prevent this happening in future, especially as I was the original author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim2709 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this is a wiki and someone else has rewritten most of the article, so it would be impossible to reconcile your deletion request with that user's contributions. As such, speedy deletion is not to be used here. You can use articles for deletion to request deletion, although I have to warn you that the subject's request alone usually is not a reason for deletion since otherwise we might not have any biographical articles at all. If people add incorrect or defamatory content, it should of course be removed but that does not require removing the whole article. Regards  So Why  20:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of File:Secondaryconsole.jpg
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at. Thank you. The Wordsmith Communicate 03:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thank you
Wanted to thank you for responding to my "help me" request. Unfortunately, my dealings with this editor haven't gotten very far in months...all references I added that day (which you seemed to agree were RS-compliant) were removed, and the editor claimed on my Talk page that all of them were "careless publications" consisting of the subject's "self puffery" (never mind that among them included the San Fransisco Bay Guardian).

The editor continuously insists that I/other editors are the subject's friends and/or sock puppets - never mind that I have never met the man and edit the page out of personal interest, just as I do with the other articles I edit (including at the moment Tiffany (singer) - I had been working on Luci'fer Luscious Violenoue, but was advised by another user to hold off on that one until I had a better grasp of the Manual of Style). I was accused of "inserting promotional claims" (I'm not sure how simply stating the facts would be considered such - I have not added in any advertisements, praise, or the like) - along with what I feel is an inappropriate threat to have me blocked from editing Wikipedia. Could you please look at the message on my Talk page and let me know your opinion of it?

At this point, I really do not know what course of action to take...I don't want to give up on the informational content of the article, much of which is missing due to similar claims in this dispute...but it doesn't seem that this editor is willing to cooperate. What do you feel would be the proper procedure in this situation? I respect this editor, but I do not understand where the hostility and antagonism are coming from.

Also, there was apparently an RFC conducted a while back (see the Clint Catalyst article's Talk page), but the link to it doesn't seem to work, so I don't know the outcome. There had been a section of the subject's other works (poems/short stories he wrote that were published in anthologies but were not collected elsewhere), which was under dispute...though I'm not sure why, as the Emanuel Xavier and Nicole Blackman articles, both of authors working in similar genres, which have been pointed out during the discussion, have these types of works up and there does not seem to be any controversy regarding them. What would be correct?

I hope this isn't too overwhelming for you...and look forward to any advice you may have. Granny Bebeb (talk) 04:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Echoing another admin's sentiment, apparently some editors have WP:OWN issues when it comes to that article. First of all, I would advise a bit more carefulness when dealing with this article. Don't re-insert when removed but start a discussion on the talk page about the removed content (see WP:BRD). Then, I would suggest obtaining third-party opinions. If noone else comments on a talk page discussion you start about this, use WP:3O to request someone neutral to take a look at it. And as for the disputed references, I really urge you to consider posting at the reliable sources noticeboard to clarify whether those sources are indeed reliable as you claim or whether the disputing editor is correct to call them promotional. Simply re-adding them will only lead to further disputes, which are not healthy. Regards  So Why  09:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Template_talk:Did_you_know
I was late, in nominating the article, can you check? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I see already took care of it, correct? Regards  So  Why  08:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing, the issue is resolved. The Kali Puja DYK is on the front page now. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 11:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible Sock
SoWhy, I am trying to investigate a possible sock and I was wondering if you could recover Talk:The lost eagle for me and move it to to subpage under User_talk:TParis00ap? Two users I believe have both admitted to being the director of this film and have recreated this article after it was deleted and I seem to recall the first user making the comment on the article's talk page. If the comment is there, I'll open a SPI. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Sure, no problem. It's at User talk:TParis00ap/Talk:The lost eagle, just use db-u1 when you are done with it. Regards  So Why  19:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Couldn't find the comment, ohh well.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK and Prep areas
OK, thanks for the heads-up regarding my own moving of a hook to the DYK prep area. I'm kind of new to nominating articles for DYK, although I have had three other articles listed on DYK in the past but I was only a significant contributor to those, someone else actually nominated them. I read the rules here and since it says "If the suggested DYK meets the requirements, any editor may add the suggestion to the DYK template preparation area and then delete the suggestion from the DYK template talk page", I assumed that it would be OK for me to do it. I purposely didn't delete my hook nomination though, just in case I'd got this process wrong. So, since my hook has already been approved by Geraldk, who will move it to the preparation area? Will it need to be approved by another user as well? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that promoting your own articles is generally discouraged, and promoting your own articles before they have been independently verified is disallowed (N1). The answer to your other question is more vague, as there's no telling who may end up moving your hook to the prep area. It could be me or SoWhy, or any other number of users, it just depends on who is filling the queues. :) In regards to being approved again, I always double check articles/hooks before I promote them, but have never had to decline an already approved hook. :) Hope this helps some. –Katerenka  (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to my stalker here for a good reply. Yes, the process of promoting hooks usually encompasses that the promoting user re-checks the nomination for eligibility, since two pair of eyes are better than one. Once your hook has been approved, simply wait. Another user might dispute the approval because the approving user made a mistake or because they disagree on a citation used in the article. Generally, DYK is similar to WP:UNINVOLVED for admins: If you have been involved with the nominated article in any way, don't promote or approve it. Regards  So Why  17:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I always thought that instead of the promoting user, the admin who moves the set to a queue was supposed to re-check. Is it both or just one?--Giants 27 ( c |  s ) 18:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends. If I move a set to a queue that has been assembled by someone I know to know the ways of DYK (like you), I will usually not re-check or only check cursory and protect the image. If I do not trust the person who assembled it, I will recheck all. But often admins will assemble and then move, so in those cases there is only one person that does the check. Point is, the whole point of assembling and moving is so that multiple people check an article and since admins sometimes need to rush to fill a queue, it's good if they can trust that the editor who assembled the hooks has already done a in-deep check. Regards  So Why  19:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
 * In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, 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

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 19:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User: BitterRitter
i would like to request that you take a look at the user BitterRitter and see whether or not that ip needs to be blocked. The page on Lorena, Texas has been edited several time by this user and he has been warned against these personal attacks, and still, he continues to post derogatory information of one person not affiliated with wikipedia. Akjgo94 (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have left them a warning on their talk page. If you see them continue, leave further warning up to level 4 (see WP:WARN for details) and, if that fails, report them to WP:AIV. Regards  So Why  15:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshire and Humberside Grid for Learning (and vandalism)
You will remember this conversation; you range-blocked 89.207.208.0/28 for six months back in April, and I said I would mark 20 October on my calendar: I did, and so did they, evidently: .1 is already blocked another year, .8 for a week, and .2, .10, .11, .12, .14, and .15 have all been vandalising. A year this time, perhaps? and I'll mark it on my calendar again. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Perhaps in a year's time you are able to do it yourself? :-) Regards  So Why  19:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Changing my essay
Sorry about that, I was just a bit surprised - by my lack of attention as much as anything - when I saw it was a userspace essay. I know some people are a bit particular about others editing in their userspace and didn't want to cause any drama. Thanks for the note, regards, Guest9999 (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Query
Hello, SoWhy. I wondered if you would be willing to give me some feedback on a speedy deletion matter. If you are, I'll post brief background details and the particular point I wanted your thoughts on. Thanks. –Whitehorse1 14:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC).


 * I'd be happy to assist you if I indeed can do so. As such, you are always welcome to post any requests for input at my talk page and, of course, all stalkers are invited to participate as well. If you want to have a second set of eyes on something, I am sure a third and fourth set are equally helpful :-) Regards  So Why  14:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree, more eyes down the line can only be a good thing. The matter I want to pick your brain about concerns two stub articles and a declined speedy. The articles had common attributes: Both were created a few years back, around the same time, by the same editor – a serial creator of copyright infringing content. Each stub, was a copyvio on creation. After verifying the source predated the articles using the Wayback Machine, I speedy‑tagged both as G12 – copyright infringement (db-copyvio); no clean versions to revert to or subsequent substantive content from anyone else existed. The age of the articles meant non-enwiki versions existed, so I also courtesy notified the interlang translator. An admin deleted one (Wolf Rock, Cornwall – another editor since created a new version), declining the second minutes later.


 * As the basis for the contrasting treatment wasn't clear to me, and wanting to learn of mistakes I had made to avoid making the same ones in the future, naturally I asked the admin about it. I'm still unclear on it. Their response on my talkpage completely sidestepped the topic of contrasting treatment of the two near-identical articles; they remarked they'd noticed the author had made more than one copyvio around the same time – when I'd placed more than one notice on the author's page; commented it was obvious the material was copied when one looks at the archived webpage – although I'd referred to it in the edit summary when tagging; last, made suggestion of my taking the easy or least effort route if faced with long articles and reliable sources – which didn't apply to the articles. Not very long after this they placed a Retired banner on their userpage.


 * My specific query is was my speedy tagging of the "Lizard Lighthouse" article in error according to relevant policies and practices? –Whitehorse1 14:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The tagging was not incorrect per se. The page itself did only contain copyright violating text and there was no clean version to revert to. But the decline was not incorrect still. The declining admin did remove all the copyvio text and reduce the article to a valid stub, which they were allowed to do (I probably would have done so myself if I could have found >200 Google Books hits for the subject). As an editor who believes that we should strive to retain encyclopedic content, even if it's only in the form of a sub-stub, I think the admin did the wiser thing and saved the article for latter improvement rather than to remove it in hopes that someone might recreate it later. Imho, he should have done the same with Wolf Rock, Cornwall (it was recreated quickly though). Hope that helps. Regards  So Why  19:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The feedback is helpful and appreciated, thank you. As I understand you, you seem to be saying: i) the tagging was not incorrect per se; the decline was correct, ii) with such pages, the foolhardier response is flagging for removal allowing later recreation in an uninfringing solid encyclopedic form.

When one of the 2 listings was declined, where the other hadn't, I couldn't see why, as they were almost identical. It seemed arbitrary, even random. Rather than rashly decide it was such, I asked the person who reviewed them about it. They didn't indicate clearly why they'd declined it, described it as not the most logical choice, silent on what made them handle the other one differently. In contrast would be &#8216;yes, but what you overlooked was…&#8217;, or &#8216;doesn't apply to this case because&#8217;, or &#8216;ordinarily yes, but took discretionary action as it was a special case because&#8217;. Your comment that not only was keeping it the ideal, the other one should have been kept too, is, arresting; certainly it addresses the discrepancy in their handling.

I hope you don't mind my prevailing on your time further with this. Placing speedy tags when they should not be placed is, undoubtedly, A Bad Thing. It is the last thing I wish to do here. Please understand it is it is very difficult to recognize the right editor approach to take, where the policy and guides instruct to do the polar opposite:"with unambiguous, clear, blatant, whole-page, from inception copyright violations, unequivocal cases where no non-infringing content worth saving overlies the infringement, having no clean versions; irrespective of their being even three years old or more: as standard operating procedure list it, db-copyvio-tag it for speedy deletion as it meets criterion G12 (excepting special within-7±1 day subpage replacement, which also sees the page deleted, though follows with moving a replacement to its former location), it being conventional that the page will need to be deleted."
 * &mdash; Deletion policy
 * Copyright violations
 * Speedy deletion
 * Wikipedia:Copyright problems
 * WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/How to clean copyright infringements
 * Copyright problems/Advice for admins
 * Category:Copyright violations for speedy deletionAs a consequence, avoiding error and proceeding correctly is far from straightforward. Regards, Whitehorse1. 16:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, nothing is really straight-forwarded and hence I could both agree and disagree with you. And of course, I cannot explain why the same admin treated two similar cases differently. Yes, the tagging was correct per your citations. I have deleted my fair share of G12 articles as well. But on the other hand, I have also saved a few of those validly tagged articles from speedy deletion by simply rephrasing the coypvio to a non-copyvio stub. The places you cite encourage tagging while others, like WP:PRESERVE (from the editing policy) favor retention of information to deletion. In the end, it comes down to these basic questions: 1.) Is the content itself encyclopedic, i.e. would it have a place here if it were not a copyvio? and 2.) Can I create a new version for this subject, e.g. do I have the time and knowledge to do so. If you answer is no to one of those, G12 is the correct way because if you cannot take the time to fix something, it still cannot be allowed to persist. If you answer yes to both, just remove the copyvio and transform the article into a stub. That way, you will preserve the information the article previously contained without violating someone's copyright, which, in the end, is what Wikipedia is for. I have transformed articles tagged for speedy deletion to valid stubs and even DYKs (for example John P. Charlton which was G12 tagged when it started here) and so can you do. It's usually not much more work than tagging for deletion and resolves the copyvio problem as well as deletion. Hope that helps. Regards  So Why  21:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This makes the whole thing much clearer. On reflection, my approach in all other cases embraced WP:PRESERVE, yet would come at unequivocal copyvios with a different mindset. There's a lot to be said for taking the third path. Your point on transforming articles containing preservable information is a good one (for example rather than tag The Morgue, I did a quick rewrite - in part since it was created by a new user; true, they were blocked months later for socking, but the article remains). Browsing through related essays linked from yours, something I saw was there isn't a consensus within the community on treatment for cases like longstanding copyvios: the last-linked essay above contrasted with this one, for example. Perhaps in some ways that is a good thing. To gain deeper understanding of handling copyright issues such as bulk articles from serial infringers, histories, etc., I'm thinking about seeking a mentor so as to be better equipped for edge cases, and nuances. One thing's for sure, running out of copyvios to deal with is unlikely! I see a new one was added to the Wolf Rock article in fact. Thanks for the clarity you provided, SoWhy. Best wishes, Whitehorse1. 17:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. If you have more detailed questions about dealing with copyvios, I suggest asking who has shown a great deal of skill in that area (so did of course Moonriddengirl but everyone is already asking her ;-)) If you have any other questions, feel free to ask at any time :-) Regards  So  Why  09:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:DGAF
Hello SoWhy. I improperly attributed this essay to you in my RfA. If you took offense, I apologize, it was not intended. You have written two other essays (WP:10CSD and WP:NEIA) that I also enjoy and I mistakenly thought you wrote this one as well. I don't know what gave me that idea. Sorry again.--TParis00ap (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No harm done, we all make mistakes. DGAF was written long before I became really active on Wikipedia. Thanks for the compliment about the ones I wrote btw, make sure to read my other essays as well Regards  So  Why  08:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interview: Interview with John Blossom
 * News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
 * In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, 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

You are wasting your time.
ON the Pebbly band article, I see you took the csd and replaced with a tag prod. You are wasting your time as it will just be removed I am replacing the speedy tag as it has not once been reviewed by a deleting admin and keeps getting removeed by new user/socks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You do realize that I am a reviewing admin? I'm sorry if you feel different but the article makes claims of importance and significance and thus fails A7. Take it to WP:AFD if someone contests the PROD. Regards  So Why  13:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No i didn't realize that but I do thank you for wasting our time with an afd or a prod on a article that could've been Speedied as a non notable band. . [] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, unfortunately, A7 is, despite a common misconception, not about notability and an article that makes a claim that the band was featured in a notable film is a claim of importance/significance and thus A7 cannot be applied. I agree that the page probably should be deleted but policy is clear that it cannot be speedy deleted. Regards  So Why  13:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How did the band claim notability? I saw none, no sources to back it up either. Haave you reviewed our three other contributers? They all have account creation yesterday and for the sole purpse of removing the csd tags. I believe unremarkable band described it well. It fails wp:music. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, A7 is not about notability or meeting WP:MUSIC. That's what PROD or AFD are for. I explained above why the article indicated importance/significance (a much lower standard than notability) enough to fail A7. Regards  So Why  14:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Declining A7 was correct as importance is asserted. However, the band gets ZERO ghits which makes me think it is a hoax.  I won't delete it under that, but feel free to re-evaluate yourself if you like. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess asking people to use common sense when using their judgement is too much to ask. I can say whatever the hell I want to in an article but if there is no sources to back it up it's non notable. SO basically we nd up at square one again, removing the csd tag for a prod given the history was a waste of time and clearly a lack of good common sense judgment in this case. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I fear you are attacking a straw man here. No one has claimed that the band is notable, but then again, notability was never a reason for speedy deletion nor are missing sources (read WP:A7). The lack of Google hits is a common fallacy in arguments and I would not delete it as a blatant hoax because non-notable bands can have no Google hits as well but still exist. If there really is a number of socks/meatpuppets trying to keep the article, AFD is the most effective way to remove the article anyway. Regards  So Why  15:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess I don't realize how I was attacking a straw man, I felt mypoints were consistent throughout. I do understand you are trying to abide within policy and I also understand Admin are questioned for things good and bad. I still think it was within your scope but we are where we are now so now more bitching about spilled milk. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * He means you were arguing against a point that he hadn't made. Yes, the band is not notable. This isn't a criteria for speedy deletion, though. The CSD criteria are specific and administrators are usually pretty strict when working CAT:CSD. You might want to spend some more time reviewing the criteria before placing more tags (and especially before edit-warring on the tags, as you suggested you might do in your first comment above). Would save you some time and agita in the future. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 15:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan
Hey, it was noble of you to remove Lindsey Lohan from semi-protected status. Unfortunately, just two hours after you removed the protection, Jon Stewart on the Daily Show made a few mentions of Lindsey Lohan and suggested some...interesting facts...that he obtained from her wikipedia page (Colbert style). This no doubt led to the excessive vandalism her page experienced. Just a strange coincidence, as I'm sure you had no idea she was going to be mentioned and Jon Stewart had no idea you would remove the protection status. Perhaps try again in a couple weeks. -Jaardon (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The article has been semi-protected since 28 October 2008 and I doubt that there will ever be a time to unprotect this article again as it has continually been a vandal-magnet :-/ Regards  So Why  14:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Coaching
Hello, I've observed that you adopt users occasionally for hands off mentoring. I wanted to inquire if you would be willing and able to take on the task of being an administration coach. I would be the person you would be coaching. I would continue to stay mostly in the areas I am today (WP:DYK, Project Lost, general wiki-gnoming, and a new project in conjunction with another editor). The areas I would be looking to administering in would be DYK and AIV. Admin tools would assist me with the needed access to preparing the queues in addition to the preps. The only other area I would be interested in using the tools would be WP:AIV to assist with the backlogs. Thank you for your time and consideration. B.s.n.  R.N.  08:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I have adopted a number of people, true and one former adoptee became an admin a short time ago, so it's true that I might have the necessary experience. On the other hand, admin coaching usually consists of the coach creating multiple exercises for the coachee to solve or questions to answer and I have never considered this a sensible approach to adminship. So what I can offer you is a sort of informal mentorship, in which you can ask me anything that you do not understand or request a review of your contributions in a certain area. If you prefer a more school-like approach to admin coaching, I'm afraid you need to find another coach though (for example ). Regards  So Why  08:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's some unsolicited advice I give editors who ask those questions (I don't think anyone has ever listened though): I myself am not a fan of traditional coaching. There are a number of noticeboards, policy talk pages, process pages (WP:AfD, WP:AfC, WP:RfA, WP:FAC, WP:GAN, WP:DYK), I'd suggest you find one or two that interest you, and start giving constructive input to them. You've expressed an interest at DYK, so keep it watchlisted, see how it's done, and help out there constructively. What you'll want to show in an RfA is that you have a use for the tools, and that you are knowledgeable in that area. Pesonally, I don't recommend becoming too active at WP:AN/WP:ANI/WT:RFA. Skim through the headlines regularly, though. Also, keep an eye for a while on current RfAs, they'll give you an idea about the project knowledge and demeanor expected from prospect admins. And, as Balloonman likes to say, act like one, and you are one. Be considerate, moderate, communicative, helpful. Also, wait longer than you think you need. RfA can be enjoyable if you do. Oh, and personally, I'm not a fan of your quite unpronounceable username. :) Amalthea  09:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I fully agree on that. Formal coaching is not able imho to teach the necessary level of WP:CLUE that only participation can teach you. BsnRN has been active at DYK for example and I think that is much more educating than a page with exercises to solve. Oh and Amalthea is right about the name as well, you should consider changing it to something more memorable. I have experienced at RFA that a lot of people are more likely to support if they recognize the name of the candidate and your username is hard to remember since it looks like a random collection of letters. Regards  So Why  10:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)If you are open to an informal mentorship, where from time to time you can review some of my contributions in, let say DYK, I would be more than satisfied. I have always thought the most important feature of an education is not the assimilation of knowledge that is taught in the courses themselves, but the subsequent learning the right question to ask and the ability to know how to gain an answer. Thank you AMALTHEA, I will take heed to what you have brought up. Was going to wait until I had at least 12,000 edits and about 1000-2000 in project spaces I planned on working in. That makes maybe 6 months from now. As far as the name, it is an acronym of both bachelorette of science in nursing (B.s.n.) and Registered Nurse (R.N.)  B.s.n.   R.N.  10:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * About the user name. I've recently seen quite the incident regarding the change of names. B.s.n.   R.N.  10:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to informally mentor you, just come here whenever you want feedback or have questions. As for the name, it might be logical, but you have to agree it's not really catchy.  Don't worry about the feedback to a name change though, the community is usually quite okay if you only change the name once or twice. Only if you do it too often they might see it as a sign of instability. Regards  So  Why  10:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing this :) I'll start thinking of something as far as the name is concerned. B.s.n.   R.N.  12:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopes this name works a little better. Cheers Calmer   Waters  19:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (←) Nice name and it's easier to remember imho. On a side note, I suggest you reconsider your userpage design, at least the huge nickname at the top. It's distracting (and maybe even boastful) and on lower resolutions (like 1024x600 on my netbook) it looks chaotic. Also, other editors usually prefer an unobtrusive and practical userpage which also might convey an "aura" of maturity. :-) Regards  So Why  08:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion - National Multi Housing Council (NMHC)
Hi,

Our page has been deleted as a copyright violation but I work for NMHC and we are willing to have the content appear on Wikipedia. Can you tell me what I need to do to have it restored? We only put up factual information about what the organization does and removed the promotional content.

Thank you

Kimduty (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, being the copyright owner is not enough. The material needs to be sourced under the GFDL as well as the CC-BY-SA licenses or a license compatible with both of them. Refer to Donating copyrighted materials for more information on how to do so. Remember that this alone is not enough for having the material on Wikipedia. It also needs to be written from a neutral point of view and meet our notability guidelines with all information verifiable using reliable sources. I am not really sure that the material on that homepage meets those requirements, so writing it anew from scratch might be easier. Before writing anything new, you should read our conflict of interest guidelines and maybe read Your first article. The help desk can help you with any questions that might arise. Regards  So Why  20:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Tales of Monkey Island episodes
Just to say that the discussion over whether to merge the article Launch of the Screaming Narwhal with Tales of Monkey Island is over with no consensus so you can create the other pages about each episode. I'd be willing to help as well once the pages are created. --VitasV (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevanz
Am I right that "offensichtliche Irrelevanz" as a reason for deletion on :de is the equivalent of A7 here ("evident non-notability")? JohnCD (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's more vaguely worded than A7 (i.e. what is "evident"?), uses the same word as for inclusion (i.e. "non-notability" instead of A7's lower standard than notability) and can be applied to any kind of article (unlike A7), but it's probably the nearest equivalent, yes. Mind you, I have not much insight in de-wiki - there are good reasons I work here instead. Regards  So  Why  13:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I wanted to know in order to complete this AfD nomination started by an IP. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Happy I could help Regards  So  Why  14:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Zonda Telecom
Hello SoWhy,

concerning my request for SD on Zonda_Telecom, I carefully reviewed the criteria before requesting it. I specifically cite: CSD and CSD. My main concern is that the only reason of notability that you mention (the revenue) is completely unsourced they could have just written a trillion dollars as well. I visited the company's website (which by the way IS THE ONLY link available from the article - clearly a spam link) and I couldn't find ANY official information about the cited revenue.

I searched google with no good results. Not to mention that a company with 1 billion dollars of revenue would probably have a different website (If you have the time, please verify yourself).''' May I re-request SD? ''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerealito (talk • contribs) 00:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you read A7, you will notice that it quite clearly states that this criterion "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source" (emphasis added). A7 does neither require a claim of notability (it says that importance or significance is "a lower standard than notability") nor it requires a source of any kind. So no, it does not meet A7. It clearly does not meet G11 since it's not unambiguously advertising the subject (for further information, see my essay WP:10CSD as well). Having a link to the company website does not make an article spammy, every article about a company has them.
 * So no, please do not re-tag it for speedy deletion. If you still want to propose it to be deleted, you can use articles for deletion instead. If you need any help, feel free to ask at any time :-)
 * PS: There are sources, just not in English, so I cannot read them. See this one for example. Regards  So Why  08:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for the barnstar, SoWhy. It's much appreciated :) ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 10:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You have earned it for cleaning up behind an old man like me ;-) Regards  So Why  12:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 FIFA U-17 World Cup
Hi SoWhy. On 2009 FIFA U-17 World Cup, I reverted several edits by User:LarryJeff that appeared to be violative of WP:CRYSTAL. However, LarryJeff undid the revert, claiming that the content did not violate WP:CRYSTAL (see discussion). I'm sitting on the fence on this one. If it's not too much trouble, a second opinion from you would be greatly appreciated. Regards,  F ASTILYsock  (T ALK ) 06:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think LarryJeff is correct, such information does not violate WP:CRYSTAL since it's not speculating on what will happen but only outlines what might happen based on currently available information. As such, it's not crystal balling but can rather be original research, as outlined and discouraged by WP:SYN. On the other hand, it should not be too hard to find a reliable source (sports magazine etc.) that published such material. Regards  So Why  07:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, sounds good. Thanks SoWhy.  Best,  F ASTILYsock   (T ALK ) 20:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome of course. If you need any other assistance, feel free to ask. =) Regards  So Why  20:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!


As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank boo err... you ;-) Same to you. Funny enough, just as you left this message, they said here on TV that Halloween becomes more and more popular here in Germany :-D Regards  So Why  18:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a Job Well Done

 * You probably meant well with your message but from its wording it seems that you misunderstood the nature of my !vote on said RFA (which is not even over yet!) or the nature of RFA itself. It's not a "fight" of the candidate versus the community nor was my !vote influenced by any assumption that Chzz were a problem user. I have great respect for their contributions - it's some mistakes they made in various fields that lead me to oppose them but it was not influenced by any urge to stop them from gaining adminship. Regards  So Why  18:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Essay vs. Policy
Thought I would stop by and ask what your opinions towards the introducing of policies are. Either one that now exists or may need clarifing. I was thinking of starting an essay on Freedom of Panorama focusing on how each country addresses the use of photography of artist works and wheather they can be used on wikipedia and what steps are needed to make them comply to their respective country's copyright/fair use/public domain/CC laws. I understand Wikicommons has one; however, Image use policy only mentions in passing (..and then to an article and not a policy). Then maybe with the assistance and collaboration of others familiar with the ins/outs of images and policies could help integrate it into something more. Thanks, and hope you had a good 31st :)  Calmer   Waters  03:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You probably should start a discussion at WP:VPP (and leave links to it at relevant image and copyright related discussion pages) to determine what others think about such a new policy (or guideline) I'm not that familiar with copyright law so it might not be needed on en-wiki as it is on Commons, so requesting some input by others will probably be helpful to determine whether the need for such an essay/policy exists or whether creating it would be a waste of time. PS: I'm German, we don't really celebrate Halloween here. There is carnival instead though ;-) Regards  So Why  09:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ahh, village pump. sounds good. I thought as much about Halloween, so just wished ya a good 31st instead :). Plus Carnival looks far more exciting. Thanks again  Calmer   Waters  14:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Userfication RFC
Thanks for commenting, but I don't see any indication that you've read the RFC proposal, which is designed to address the general concerns you outlined. If you had read it, I'd have expected a more specific response on problems with that proposal. Rd232 talk 10:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I responded at the RFC. Regards  So Why  10:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Sorry, didn't mean to sound so snappy. Rd232 talk 11:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it, I know you didn't :-) Regards  So Why  13:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Fort Gwalior (en).jpg
Surely there was no need to protect this image? If it is going on the Main Page, then it is automaticaly protected through the cascading option. PS, it's been used on the Main Page now, so requires deletion.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  14:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To avoid manipulation shortly before it gets used on the Main Page, otherwise a vandal could replace it very shortly before the update is scheduled, the bot would transfer it and then a vandalized image would appear on the Main Page that only admins could deal with. By protecting them as soon as they are uploaded here we can make sure that there is no manipulation before the update. PS: Thanks for the note that it's no longer required, I will delete it. Regards  So Why  16:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Are they temporary protections? (sorry I forget to check and it's now been deleted) If they're permenant then I, and other auto-confirmed users, won't be able to tag it for deletion after it's been used.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  16:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I usually protect them for 3 days which is enough time to take into account any changes with the queue and the time it takes for the queue to go to the Main Page. Usually the admin protecting should delete it although in my case does a good job cleaning up behind me when I forget. Btw: Don't rename the file when you upload it from Commons, just use the same file name and the software will use the local copy as long as it exists. This way the image can be protected both on the Main Page and in the article (as the article will attract more vandals and image vandalism is particularly annoying). Regards  So  Why  16:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * When I first tried uploading it to English Wikipedia with the same name as the Commons file, I don't think it let me overwrite. Maybe it was a random error and I'll try and save it as the same name next time. Do you reckon that by protecting the queues with cascading option, that you wouldn't have to manually protect each image? It might save a lot of time.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  16:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm...strange. I just tried with my alternate account and you are correct, apparently only admins can do so. I did not know that. As for cascading protection for the queues, I have no idea if this would result in the same result. You should maybe raise this at WT:DYK. Regards  So Why  18:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Shall I continue uploading images with the (en) suffix then? PS I raised the cascading query at Wikipedia talk:Did you know.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  18:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say just don't upload them at all. The admin who transfers the prep to a queue has to check the image anyway, so they can upload the image as well. Regards  So Why  18:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009
<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) 05:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hook for "Lola"

 * (Note - I'm double posting this message on my talk page as well as yours. Please respond on my talk page) I appreciate your caring for the hook, however, a similar one was recently featured on the front page about Konk, as well as the "recent success" bit. I liked the old one about the guitars, and Calmer Waters agreed that it was alright to keep the link to Lola versus Powerman. The hook was still under 200 characters in that version. If you could change it back before it gets to the front page, I would appreciate it. Many thanks for your concern, - I.M.S. (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Queue transfer
I don't know if this was your intention, but I thought I'd inform you of it. You added the hooks to queue 4, but according to the bot queue 3 is next on the Main Page. Queue 3 is currently empty. You might want to move the hooks from queue 4 into queue 3.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  16:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Disregard that! The bot's playing up and queue 4 is indeed next.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  16:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the bot. I am happy to see that someone fixed it though. Regards  So Why  18:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * Cool, thanks. It was my pleasure :-D Regards  So Why  19:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

5x expansion of article in DYK hook for new article
Hi SoWhy, thanks for the DYK credit thing for the 1833 Sumatra earthquake. I was under the impression, possibly erroneously, that credit would also be given for the 5x expansion of microatoll in the same hook. I feel kind of bad asking for it, particularly as I don't entirely understand the system yet, but it would be good to know if I did something wrong at the nomination stage. Mikenorton (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not assemble this set myself, that was done by, I just added them to the queue. The version he used did not have a pre-created credit, which is probably why this was not recorded. You need to use <tt> </tt> when nominating for DYK for both articles to be automatically included. In this case I have now checked the second nomination and awarded you the correct credit. If you need anything else, feel free to ask. Regards  So  Why  06:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation (and the credit). Next time I'll know. Mikenorton (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem.  So  Why  08:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for remeding this. I now know to watch for multi article nominations bolded in addition to the automated substitution template in the future while compiling the Prep areas. Thanks again Calmer   Waters  21:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Douglas Warrick
I disagree with the outcome, but I respect your reasoning, which you explained very clearly, thanks. I think I'd have said no consensus, but as that defaults to keep it's a moot point. Fences &amp;  Windows  20:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We cannot all agree of course, so I tried my best how I arrived at that result based on the discussion. I was about to consider "no consensus" actually but in the end the arguments for keeping simply were better in light of the relevant policies. Regards  So Why  20:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

CHU is backlogged
...and I noticed you tend to lurk there quite a bit. Want to give it a shot? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the vote of confidence by suggesting it. I was considering it but currently I am not confident that the community is willing to trust me with further privileges (the OS election results were pretty clear about that). I have thought about maybe running in December or January but to be honest, I wanted to await someone else's RFB first to see where the community's standards lie currently. Regards  So Why  19:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fair. Oversight is a different position than bureaucrat, so I think that election isn't necessarily indicative of the potential result of an RfB, but I hope to see you run sometime fairly soon. :) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * True but both are positions that require high levels of trust by the community and as such failing in the former may be an indication that failing the latter is likely as well. I do hope though that I will feel confident to try it in a few weeks/months. Unfortunately there undoubtedly is a need for more crats as you say... Regards  So Why  20:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of Star Wars
An AFD discussion that you have previously participated in has been reignited. See here for the new discussion.--chaser (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

RFA
Thanks. I'm new to the nomination process myself as far as nominating someone else is concerned. As I said to a few others, now I know what it feels like to deal with a sometimes-confusing process, like with WP:SPI for everyone else. MuZemike 22:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Every process has it's quirks and oddities one has to live with and RFA is no exception. If I can help you with anything concerning it, feel free to ask. :-) Regards  So Why  22:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009
<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) 02:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Prep2
will go to queue5. The lead hook is specifically Australian. It will air at 4am-10am ozzie time, i.e. astray. Materialscientist (talk) 09:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually assumed it would go into queue 6 with prep 1 going to queue 5 but I just saw that noone actively works on prep 1 though. Will you want to work on prep 1? Otherwise I'd finish prep 2, sent it to queue 6 and then compile prep 1. Regards  So Why  09:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Materialscientist (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Ok" what? "Ok I will do prep 1" or "Ok, queue 6 is fine, you can do prep 1 afterwards"? Regards  So  Why  09:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok refers to prep2 → q6 and me doing prep1 → queue5 :-) Materialscientist (talk) 09:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear. I'll assemble queue 1 afterwards then, won't hurt to have some done in advance :-) Regards  So Why  09:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, and maybe one of you could remove the extra set of eclipses (...) from Q4 hook 4. :) Calmer   Waters  09:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅  So Why  09:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mind if I strip picture from your Wolfgang Stumph hook (for prep1), but put Battle of Stralsund (1809) as the lead for prep2? The latter seems most attractive from the bottom hooks, and the time is Ok for europe. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, the picture is not important, I just added it in case a picture hook is needed. :-) Regards  So Why  09:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Wolfgang Stumph

 * Hiya SoWhy, any reason in particular you didn't link Go Trabi Go in the hook? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I had not yet created that article when I nominated the Wolfgang Stumph article and forgot to change the hook once I did ;-) Regards  So Why  07:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, makes sense. I noticed this while reading the main page, and made the correction, but I think the hook had already been live for something like 4 hours when I did it. Regards, <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, thanks anyway. 2 hours is better than 0 hours after all. Regards  So  Why  08:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

templates
hmmm. how do you feel about labeling people "single purpose accounts"?

Richmondian (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Being a single purpose account is not an editing philosophy, is it? The {{subst:spa}} template serves to notify the closing administrator of an AFD that sock-puppetry might have been happened to influence the outcome of the discussion. On the other hand, the !voter being a deletionist or an inclusionist is completely irrelevant for the closing admin's decision and labeling people as such does only serve to antagonize people because it comments on the person of the !voter, not on the matter at hand. Regards  So Why  07:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know question
Hello! Your submission of Richard Rogler at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Art LaPella (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: I like...
Heh, thanks. I made some minor adjustments to my userpage for those of you who already get it. Take a look. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hehe, nice work! I got a feeling you fit in quite nicely with us here Regards  So  Why  09:01, 12 November 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, 12, November 2009! Keep up the great work!-- <font color="SteelBlue" face="Loki Cola">Coldplay <font color="Crimson" face="Loki Cola">Expert  01:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Note: You could also recieve the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!


 * Cool, thanks. I appreciate it! :-) Regards  So Why  08:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sub-optimal situation
Hey there SoWhy. As you have noticed, over the past 48 hours, I have managed to dig myself into a pretty deep hole. NEWT turned out a lot worse than anyone could have planned, and a lot of that is my fault. I have tried to patch things up, but it is too little too late; all I could really do it redact the names from my summary. I never wanted to push people away from areas of the project that they enjoyed working in. Do you have any advice for where I should go from here with trying to mend things with those editors? Thanks for any help you can give, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 17:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm...yes, that situation has been spiraled out of control a bit unfortunately. There is probably nothing much you can do currently since those editors are convinced you only participated to humiliate them and they have been unreceptive to anyone telling them that this was not the point. So I'd advise you let it rest for a day or two, then try to talk to them again, explaining that it was not intended to embarrass anyone and that you are sorry if they felt insulted by your experience report. That's probably the only thing you can do really, trying to talk to them and asking them to understand what your intentions were and that you did not want for all this to happen. It's up to them whether they are willing to assume good faith though - unfortunately currently some of them seem to prefer assuming bad faith instead. Regards  So Why  17:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've started to engage with some of them, I think that several interesting insights will come of this. Many users were genuinely surprised to discover that they were doing things wrong.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bug in "reword" tool
You seem to have tripped a bug in the "reword" tool. See here, where you removed Risker's vote on a request. I'll be replacing that, but am dropping off this note to let you know. If you could add your voice to those reporting this bug, that would be good. Carcharoth (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, wow, thanks for telling me. I'll take care not to use the tool until it's fixed then. Sorry for the trouble caused :-/ Regards  So Why  07:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem - it was clearly unintentional and certainly not your fault. Having to trawl all of the ArbCom pages for usage of the tool has not been fun however :-) Still I've found two other overwrites so far (not by you), so it has been worth it. Cheers Manning (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Still, it shows that I am still a newb after 5 years on this project when it comes to certain things. ;-) Lucky for me that it was caught and that I welcome constructive criticism. :-) I deactivated the script, but maybe it should be temporarily at least (until M returns) edited to display a warning, what do you think? Regards  So Why  07:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL - I've been here 8 years and there is stuff I still screw up :) Manning (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I commented at User talk:M on this. I have a (hopefully) bug-free version at User:Tim Song/reword.js. Tim Song (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Still not fixed, unfortunately. Checking what's going on. Tim Song (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a quirk of the API that you cannot edit conflict with yourself. I tested with another account and got the EC message. Tim Song (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you can edit conflict with yourself in normal editing in my experience. =) Regards  So Why  09:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but for some reason the API does not recognize that. I created an EC with the same account, it's overwritten; I created EC with an alternate account, it's not and I get an error message back. Tim Song (talk) 09:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

has fixed the original version. Tim Song (talk) 09:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK preps
You are welcome to fill in both prep1 and prep2 (I started prep1 and stopped to avoid unilateralism :-). I am online for another 2 hrs and then offline for some 10-12. Materialscientist (talk) 10:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll do it once I'm done with prep 2. :-) Regards  So Why  10:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK
Can you take a quick look at the main page under the DYK section. :) Thanks Calmer   Waters  19:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A hint what I should look for? Regards  So Why  19:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The page image formatting. Sorry was attempting to be coy. Not trying to bother you; however, my watchlist showed you as one of the last Admins to have editted. Left a message on the disscussion page about some other issues. Sorry Calmer   Waters  19:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm...weird. Is it better now? Regards  So Why  20:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Accepted RFA nomination
Hello SoWhy, I accepted the nomination at Requests for adminship/Atama and filled out the basic questions, thank you. --  At am a  頭 22:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Good luck Regards  So  Why  10:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Pick your brain about PROD
Hi there, I see you've had another 100% with Explicit. . . congrats! You do know how to pick 'em, ;-) I'm here to ask you a couple of PROD questions.  I've checked out the help and guides on the subject and it doesn't seem very clear.

Is it appropriate to delete a PRODed article (of course assuming that it is appropriate for deletion) even if the article's creator was never informed of the tagging? Is it just "good practice" and "considerate" to inform the author, or is it a requirement? It looks like the guide only "suggests" it, and the prod project, WP:WPPDP, doesn't mention doing it at all. If the creator wasn't notified, and I still delete the article, should I inform the creator of the deletion? I looked for some appropriate templates to see if there was a "I've deleted your PRODed article", but couldn't find any.

So the second question is, is it appropriate to tell editors who have tagged the article that they have neglected to inform the creator? I don't want to get stroppy about it if it isn't even a requirement, but to me it just doesn't seem right to assume that the creator will see the PROD on the article. I couldn't find any templates for this sort of notification either, so that makes me think that it isn't accepted practice.

Hope you're well! <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din \talk 12:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, thank you. It's not my doing though, I just am lucky to ask the great people whether they'd like to run :-)


 * No, there is indeed no requirement for notification, just like there is none for the speedy deletion process but it's considered good manners to do so. Since you are the deciding admin, you can choose how to treat the situation. You could reset the prod tag (by replacing it using {{subst:prod}} with the original tagger's reasoning) and notify the creator or if you believe that the creator is probably unable to save the article (because it's ineligible for inclusion or the creator is inactive), you can delete it and leave them a note. You should inform them one way or another though so they know what happened to the article.
 * As for the tagger, you should probably tell them (similar to {{subst:uw-notifysd}} for speedy deletion) that they should notify creators. It might not be a formal requirement but it's in the spirit of WP:BITE that you should give the creator of the article the chance to improve the article or challenge the deletion.
 * As for myself, I'm not really well, I'm at home sick with toothache and a tonsillitis. Hope you are feeling better than I do. Regards  So Why  13:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear that you're unwell! Hope you get better soon, we can't have your wiki productivity reduced!


 * Thanks for the thoughtful answer; I'm glad you've agreed that it isn't unreasonable to tell the tagger of the missing notification. And if the creator of the article wasn't notified, I will either leave them a note saying I've deleted it, or will re-PROD and wait.


 * Out of interest, why isn't it a requirement for either CSD or PROD to notify the creator or significant contributors? Does it conflict in some way with WP:OWN?  <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din \talk 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You and me both hope that. Unfortunately it lead to further problems that I don't think I should publicly elaborate.
 * Probably because there are cases where notification is not desired and/or because we don't want to frighten new users trying new page patrol from doing so by adding such requirements. There is a discussion to make it mandatory (for CSD at least) at WT:CSD at the moment though. Regards  So Why  17:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK?
Hi SoWhy,

Could you tell me whether André Simonazzi is DYK material? If not, what would it require to become one?

Cheers, MLauba (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles need to be either
 * Newly created (within the last five days), and at least 1500 characters of readable prose,
 * Or
 * Expanded fivefold within the last five days, again in terms of readable prose.
 * André Simonazzi was created seven days ago, and is currently at around 700 characters. It could qualify for DYK if it were significantly expanded (to around 4k in prose) within five days. That would be a lot of work, though. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, in particular since while there are plenty sources quoting him in his official capacity, there's quite a paucity of biographical information beyond his official bio. Thanks for the stalking :) MLauba (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, DYK is quite strict in that regard. I suggest if you plan to DYK something, to create it in userspace first since the "new" counts from the day it was moved to article space, so you have as much time as you want :-) Regards  So Why  11:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gonna try with Achille Casanova then :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MLauba (talk • contribs)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009
<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) 16:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your wish is my command
Well not exactly, but I did tone down my signature. It was a bit garish. Fences &amp;  Windows  21:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, too bad, I'd have loved that. ;-) But thanks for the tone-down, I appreciate it, really :-) Regards  So Why  22:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Powder game
why did you delete the powder game article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.20.35 (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * When I deleted it, it was a pure attack page that could not be tolerated. Later versions were deleted by another admin based on community consensus at Articles for deletion/Powder game. Regards  So Why  22:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Heads up
I've started a thread at WT:RFA that you might (or might not) be interested in. - Dank (push to talk) 22:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. Sorry that I (mis)used it for a rant :-/ Regards  So Why  23:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a perfectly good rant. I hope someone has some suggestions for improving the odds. - Dank (push to talk) 23:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

CSDHelper and other tools
Technical advice please - I have never used any of the add-on tools so far, but CSDHelper looks useful, so I studied WikiProject User scripts/Scripts, made myself a monobook.js page, and bypassed the cache as instructed, but nothing seems to have happened: is there something else I need to do to switch them on? "Enable Java" and "Enable Javascript" are ticked in my Firefox/Tools/Options/Content, and I have installed Greasemonkey.

Also, I looked at your monobook.js page and see you have imported somebody else's version of CSDHelper - is there an advantage to that?

I hope your health is improving. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Importing javascript requires you to use the correct script URL. See my monobook.js for example (where you can find a lot of other useful tools you might want to consider using - if you do, simply copy+paste the relevant part of my config). You have used the WikiProject's userscript list site instead of the scripts itself (you need to click on the links there) and use the page name displayed (or the instructions on the page). I have fixed your monobook.js for you, I think you will see the difference. Try bypassing the cache now, it should work now (note that CSDHelper only displays an additional tab on pages with a CSD tag and closeAFD only on AFDs).
 * Oh, and thanks. Yes, my health is slowly but steadily improving. :-) Regards  So Why  12:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks, that works. I'll look over your monobook.js and see what else I might lift. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dr Zhongjun Cao
A note regarding your closing comments for this AfD. As somebody pointed out during the AfD, WP:BLP1E is a part of WP:BLP, a policy about living individuals, so it does not really apply to a person who is dead. A better thing to cite here would probably be WP:BIO1E. Nsk92 (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, thank you. I must admit, my shortcut knowledge is not as good as it should be sometimes. You are correct of course and I have fixed the closing rationale accordingly. Thanks again for notifying me :-) Regards  So Why  16:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Jamal Abdullah Usman
If you want to keep article on Jamal Abdullah Usman, I do not have any problem but the article doesn't meet as per BIO and even admins on Urdu WP. --<font face="Rage Italic" size="4" style="color:#000000;color:black">Saqib talk 17:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I just declined it since not meeting WP:BIO is not a reason for speedy deletion, although I just noticed that you were the article's creator. I can delete it as author's request although I'd suggest that if your concerns about notability are valid, someone else will nominate it for deletion sooner or later. Remember that deletion on another project does not mean anything since every WP has their own rules on notability. Regards  So Why  17:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ottfried Fischer
Hello! Your submission of Ottfried Fischer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Katerenka (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page User:SoWhy worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 19:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops! I tend to patrol your page. Sorry. Now reverted. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 19:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

-Garrett W. (Talk / Contribs / PM) 04:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the first time I was warned for editing my userpage. Got to mark this day in my calender  So  Why  19:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * =] Yeah, I saw my watchlist, someone added "a little color" to a well-known admin's page? In my mind: I don't think so! But then I saw, "hmmm, it's SoWhy editing SoWhy's page. Duhhrrr!" —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 19:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn me and my desire for a blue DYK counter! But seriously, thanks for keeping an eye on my userpage, most appreciated.  Regards  So  Why  19:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, good work Sánchez!

GFDL
When I see that there are a handful (10 or less or so) of edits which are basically spelling corrections or vandalism which was reverted, my understanding is that those are not significant. However, you may want to ask an expert like User:Gmaxwell. -- Avi (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Policy change
you might want to discuss rewording policy when you just violated it 3 times yourself, , and. While I agree that bot accounts shouldn't prevent someone from editing a page, bots are autonomous. This was deliberate editing with two different accounts. Completely different.--Crossmr (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC) -Garrett W. (Talk / Contribs / PM) 04:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless, of course, one is his main account and the other is for use on public computers ... right?
 * That wasn't the case here.--Crossmr (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If this wasn't the case here, why do you bring up that I have clarified the policy? Garrett is right, if I edit a page with my public computer account, does this prevent me from editing it with my main account? No, of course not and as ThaddeusB wrote (when he reverted you reverting me), there is nothing to discuss here, as no one, including yourself I think, will claim that it's forbidden to do so. It was just that the policy was a bit ambiguous at that point, thus I clarified it.
 * I understand that you are frustrated by the actions of the WP:NEWT project but please refrain from assuming that I make such edits in order to "clear my actions". My participation in said project are over and I have never edited the same page giving the impression I was different people (when I edited the pages at SoWhy, the other account was already clearly linked to my main account). I just fixed them afterwards because I think it was my responsibility to do so as the article creator. If you think I should have left them alone even after the connection was made public, then that is your opinion to have of course. Regards  So Why  10:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't the case here because you didn't use your public computer account to make those edits. And you only made that clarification after I noted on the NEWT page that I discovered several editors in violation of that policy. I don't think its a stretch to assume you were making that clarification in response to the discussion and since you were one of the editors who took those actions I don't think its appropriate for you to make the unilateral change given the circumstances without discussion. Given the controversy over the project it would have been far less contentious to start a talk conversation.--Crossmr (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My actions are irrelevant to judging whether the clarification of policy was correct, aren't they? If you agree that the clarification itself was correct (as you do above), then it's irrelevant who made it, isn't it? The reason why I did not start a talk page conversation is that I did not change the spirit of the policy but only made a clarification that I could assume no one would object to (even you only object because *I* did it not because you disagree with the change itself).
 * On a side note, I have actually not followed the discussion on WT:NEWT for several days now so I didn't know that you have talked about that section of policy. I apologize if you felt that this was in reaction to a comment you made, I can assure you, it was merely a coincidence. Regards  So Why  14:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a very big coincidence. And yes I did object to it. I've objected on the talk page. I think the onus has to be on the user to ensure everyone knows they are editing the same article with two accounts. Not on them to show they aren't going out of their way to hide it.--Crossmr (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That much is true. And I also agree that people should not edit the same page with different accounts to give the impression of being multiple people. But I must have misread your comments, I did not think that you objected to someone with declared multiple accounts editing the same page (which were the examples I used, i.e. public PC or bot accounts). Regards  So Why  21:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

- Garrett W. (Talk / Contribs) 18:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * SoWhy, in the diffs linked to by Crossmr, I didn't see an account named Yhwos -- rather, I found, which redirects to your user page. I assume you own that account too?
 * Yes, that was the account I created for WP:NEWT, see Newbie treatment at CSD/SoWhy (I have not used it since then of course). I only mentioned "Yhwos" as the account I use on public PCs for the situation I tried to explain to Crossmr. As I said above, the policy clarification was with such accounts in mind, I had not thought about the NEWT stuff anymore. Regards  So Why  19:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009
<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) 13:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the DYK heads up
I appreciate the notice about the fact from the Citizenship in the United States article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't thank me, thank . I just scheduled it to be put on the Main Page. Good job on that article btw :-) Regards  So Why  13:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

CSD A7 clarifcation
Hi there, I always assumed that simply saying that you actor/author/sportsman etc without explaining why you are notable (ie won an award, was on a major film/tv series/professional sports team etc) was a candidate for an A7 CSD. You recently converted an A7 into a Prod for a child actor who, in their own terms, had only appeared in commercials and a "bit part" in a movie. I know that the A7 rules are some of the tightest and most subjective, but which part of Mitchell Brown (actor) makes any credible claim of significance or importance? (BTW, interesting reading of your newbie CSD experience!) The-Pope (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the article did say that the subject played in a notable film, which is good enough to indicate importance/significance imho. I agree that the subject is probably not notable per WP:BIO but I think it's enough to give the article at least a chance for a few days. If you are interested, my essay WP:A7M lists a number of indications that many admins consider enough to fail an A7 tagging. Regards  So Why  15:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to the A7 essay, definitely bookmarkable... but I think you should consider adding a "credited" qualifier to the "part in a notable film" criteria. Mr Brown is not mentioned in the 80 or so people listed at imdb's full cast list, so I think "bit part" in this case might mean "extra"! Oh well, he gets his 7 days of fame.The-Pope (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Informing of deletion
Hey SoWhy, could you take a peek here: please? Were it your template, what would you change? What do you think of it? I'd appreciate any advice. Feel free to edit it, too. (You can see it implemented here.) Thank you! <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din \talk 13:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. I have replaced with  and added a "subst:" to it when including the template to have the name. fixed. I also bolded the notability link and added another sentence and changed the wording a bit. The <tt>    </tt>  looks complicated I guess but it just assures that your signature is included when using it but not on the template itself. Regards  So  Why  13:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Groovy, thank you! Definite improvements.  I was going to ask what the difference is between PAGENAME and BASEPAGENAME and then I found Help:Magic words.  I don't quite understand why you used subst: though . . . because?  Wait, let me think, substitution . . . places it instead of looking it up, right?  So, in other words, if the user's talk page was moved to another user's talk page, the text would remain the same instead of altering to the new page name?  But when I use the template, I'll be substituting the whole thing, so why is that necessary?  I must be missing something, :-)  I see why you did what you did with the signature, but don't understand quite how, or why it's split around the tildes.  What does <tt>    </tt> accomplish that, say, <tt> ~ </tt> doesn't?  Sorry for the questions, hope you don't mind! :p  <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din \talk 14:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you subst the whole thing, it will not subst templates (or magic words) that are in the template itself, thus you need a second subst for each template within the template you want to substitute. So you need a subst: for BASEPAGENAME as well.
 * As for the complicated ~ stuff, I did it that way so the template page displays exactly what it will place on a page, so someone reading the template will understand that the signature is included in the template. Unfortunately, the software ignores includeonly or noinclude tags when saving a page with ~ on it, so in your example you would end up with your signature in includeonly-tags (see example). Thus you need to have something between the tildes and this is the only way to do it in a semi-useful way
 * PS: Don't worry about the questions, I am always happy to help my fellow editors (and especially members of the most exclusive nice-female-admins-who-were-formerly-my-adoptee group ). Regards  So Why  15:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh, I see now, I hadn't noticed before that the template was still in the edit window.  Thanks for explaining that and the mess with the tildes!  I'll know for next time, :-)  And ooooh, I get to be a member of SWAT and the nice-female-former-adoptee group; lucky me!   <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din \talk 08:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As usual, you are more than welcome. Keep up the good mop work Regards  So  Why  08:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of a request for help re page on Tariq Modood
Hi, I am sure I made some error in sending my request and thats why you deleted it. The deletion is not important. I am trying to get my biographical page improved. If you can help with that or advise me on how to get help/edit/review etc that would be great.

If you don't recall the page I am talking about it, or something v similar can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Biographies_2#Tariq_Modood_Bio_Stub

cheers Sotm (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You can edit Tariq Modood yourself of course but per our conflict of interest guideline, I would strongly advise you to make yourself familiar with our policies and guidelines before even attempting to contribute to a page that is about you or any subject you are affiliated with. I see you have added the text to the talk page of the article and someone has put a request edit template on it. I have moved it and added a comment, hopefully someone will respond to it shortly. I would offer to do so myself but I am not a native speaker of English and thus I want to leave such large scale content edits to more experienced editors. Regards  So Why  09:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Changing username
Hi there. I have commented further on your request. While it may be allowed on this project (I cannot predict the crats' decision), the username you requested exists on several projects and you will not be able to create a complete unified account if you are renamed to this name here. You might want to consider a different name that allows you to create such an account. Regards SoWhy 07:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello SoWhy, thanks for the information. As a matter of fact I am already using "Humboldt" as a user name in the French and Indonesian WP's. So I suppose this can support my case for using it in the English WP... Best regards, Humboldt 17:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djoehana (talk • contribs)

:D CSD article please!
Please delete Cool guy per criterion G1.. or A7? Thanks :) A8  UDI  09:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's more of a A1 or A3 than nonsense. @Kate   (talk)  09:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's a A7 imho. It has context and content (however little of it) but it's not gibberish or patent nonsense either. It was about a real person (most likely the page creator). It's irrelevant that the person's name was not in the article name. Regards  So Why  09:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, fair enough. I usually tag articles such as this (with the only content being "John Doe") as A1. Thanks for the tip. @Kate   (talk)  09:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

RFA
I see you have logged an oppose opinion in my RFA. If my request fails, how long would you recommend I wait before logging another request?--RadioFan (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!


I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Usurpation request on en-wiki

 * Hello,

Hi there. Someone, probably you, claimed at the English Wikipedia that you are user "Djoehana" on the Englisch Wikipedia and requested an username change to "Humboldt" on that project. If you made this request, please leave an edit here to confirm it.
 * Sorry, I didn't get it. Where do you want me to put the edit?

You should create an unified login using Spécial:Fusionner le compte on this project by the way, it would make your requests for username changes on other projects easier in the future. Regards SoWhy (d) 26 novembre 2009 à 11:03 (CET)
 * I've tried to, but am not too sure I succeeded.

I see you have created a SUL account. Sorry to bother you further, but could you please make an edit to this project in which you confirm that you are "Djoehana" on the English Wikipedia? Just to make sure no one tries to take the account in your name. :-) Regards SoWhy (d) 26 novembre 2009 à 18:15 (CET)
 * Again, where do you want me to put the edit? Thanks and regard, Humboldt 07:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djoehana (talk • contribs)
 * Replied on your talk page. Regards  So Why  07:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion declined: TOMC3
I feel so stupid admitting this, but in the back of my mind I had "PROD" instead of CSD, but CSD came out of my keyboard instead. ArcAngel (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. We all make mistakes after all :-) Regards  So Why  11:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * True, I just don't want these mistakes to come back to haunt me when I make another RFA run in a few months. ;)  ArcAngel (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you are able to admit them, it should not be a problem. If you had tried to convince me that your tagging was correct, then it would probably come to haunt you one day in the form of "is not able to admit mistakes" ;-) Regards  So Why  12:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Andreas Rebers
Hello! Your submission of Andreas Rebers at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Cc-bcv.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Cc-bcv.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. <font color='black'>Chillum 21:00, 28 November 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, November 30th, 2009! Keep up the great work! Note: You could also recieve the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!

<span style="font-weight:bold; color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 2px; padding: 1px 3px;"> December21st2012Freak (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Much deserved --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm constantly impressed by both SoWhy's work and his kindness and willingness to help others. @Kate   (talk)  03:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And I am constantly overwhelmed by such kind words and gestures. Sometimes I feel like I cannot live up to the hype but I will do my very best to try. Thank you Regards  So  Why  09:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Preps
Please use hooks from prep1 too - those are old approved noms which I pulled them from queues for various compatibility reasons. Materialscientist (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. I assumed you were working on them. I'll use them as well then. :-) Regards  So Why  09:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009
<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) 14:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hi SoWhy. I just transferred this image to Commons using the very neat Commons Helper. My question is, now that this file is available on Commons isn't it redundant to have it here locally as well? Or do we keep files that were originally uploaded here regardless of what happens on Commons? Thanks, @Kate   (talk)  17:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what speedy criterion F8 is for. Just tag it with db-f8 after transferring it. I took care of this image. Regards  So Why  18:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Thanks. @Kate   (talk)  18:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As usual, you are more than welcome Regards  So  Why  18:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Prep1
Please go on and fill up the prep as you wish (I put 2 hooks and noticed you there). There are many US hooks unsuitable for the forthcoming time zone :-( Materialscientist (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You can use prep 1 if you like. I have switched to prep 2 now. It would be good if we both could do one, to have two queues ready. Regards  So Why  10:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me finish prep1 first (not to fight for hooks). I leave "filled" summary in a prep when I'm done. Materialscientist (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. :-) Regards  So Why  10:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry for stealing hooks from you, but I'll try to review more now. I'll put up the next update (in about 1/2 hour, if bot crashes), but for the update after that I'm offline. Happy editing :) Materialscientist (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll fill prep 2 now. Regards  So Why  11:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Beta testing
Hi there SoWhy. I'm currently writing an editing tool for deletion tagging, WikiAlerter. At the moment I'm looking for some users to do a bit of testing for me, as I haven't (and in some cases can't) use all the functions myself. This would basically involve using the program from time to time, being prepared for it to mess up on you, and reporting any errors to me :). If you were willing to do so, this would be very helpful, but feel free to say no :). If you do decide to, please email me (so I have your email to send the program to). Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:7
I was thinking about nominating User:7 again for adminship. He told me to discuss it with you first, because of your concerns of the last RFA. I glanced though his edits and it's clear he learned from that RFA. What do you think. Thanks Secret account 17:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be more than happy to help. A general comment on that though: 7's last RFA was in mid August, so a "mere" 3,5 months have passed. A new RFA now might be burdened by generic "too soon" opposes due to this. I will take a look at their contributions again now to see whether my concerns have been addressed though. Regards  So  Why  18:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Let's see...generally, I think 7's self-assessment, i.e. that he has learned from the criticism of his last RFA, seems to be justified. The amount of mistakes has been greatly reduced as far as I can see and his approach to deletion has become less BITEy and more newbie friendly. That said, he still made some mistakes that could have been avoided easily: This A7 tagging for example of a multi-award winning filmmaker and a couple of hasty G12s (example) for cases where the copyvio could have been (and was) removed instead of deletion but they are few and much less often than at the time of the last RFA. Personally, if no other issues surface that I have not seen, I'd probably support a second RFA but he should consider that some !voters might consider 3,5 months very short between two RFAs. Regards  So Why  19:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks SoWhy - I was just coming here now to ask you to look over my recent history as well. I appreciate the time and effort you put into it because I know everyone's time is valuable and being given a chore like this isn't fun to wake up to.  I definitely agree with the comment about this potentially being too soon after the first RFA.  I'm in no rush, and I'm traveling from Dec 20 to early Jan anyway.  If even Jan is too soon then I'll wait.
 * I am glad that my work seems less bitey, which is something I have tried to do with both the way in which I tag as well as the way in which I give a softer, often manually written comment on the users talk page as opposed to the standard warnings with large triangular signs.
 * But to be honest I'd rather go not into this with people feeling that my tagging is prone to fewer mistakes, but instead to no mistakes at all (maybe that's impossible - but we have to dream). If I may take up a bit more of your time I'd like to comment on the examples above to explain the rationale for each, and perhaps you can help explain where my logic breaks down or where I should have done things differently.
 * Oggi Tomic - I noticed this one because of the edit filter autobiography tag. I always try to AGF but when starting to review an autobio article I find myself wondering what the author's intent was (e.g. vanity or spam), perhaps more than if it was an unrelated third-party created the article.  A search  for evidence of awards for him yielded nothing relevant, and I believe at the time his IMDB entry did not even exist.  Had the text claimed that he himself had won awards, or that he had played a critical role (writer/director/etc...) of the award winning films I would not have tagged - but it just said he "worked on" the films.  Without knowing the role which he played it was hard to find this a credible assertion of importance.  I realize autobio/coi have are not related to notability, but I wonder if the conflict made me question whether the claims were credible.  I had this same conversation with the reviewing admin shortly after he declined A7 and he later prodded.  In cases like this if I should not have let the autobio tag influence me in any way I am certainly willing to change my approach and attitude.  If I should also adjust my view of what passes as a credible assertion of importance to a much lower bar I can live with that.
 * Noorul Islam College of Engineering - I believe I noticed this one from the edit filter "whitespace" tag. In my experience I found that whitespace is often indicative of a copyvio (copy/paste from a webpage) and when I did a search I found the pages on  which were either exact matches or close paraphrases.  I noticed immediately after tagging that there was some non-copyvio'd content worth saving and undid my own CSD a minute later and removed the copyvio section.   I'm actually glad you brought this up because there were still some copyright violations in other sections, and I have removed them.  On this one it's probably fair to say that I should have noticed the non-copyvio parts before tagging.
 * If there are other concerns or things that you think I should do differently please feel free to be brutally honest with me.  Thanks again for your time.   7  02:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Errare humanum est. There is probably not a single user on this project who would expect a candidate for adminship to be perfect. I should know, I got opposed over tagging mistakes on my RFA as well (see #5).
 * As for those two examples I mentioned...
 * Yes, autobiographies and the question whether something is a credible assertion of importance/significance is always a bit complicated. Someone once wrote that you if you are in doubt whether the page in question meets the criterion you want to apply, you should not tag it. I think that is a bit of advice we all should consider following. Yes, that article was borderline but a number of such borderline articles have later turned out to be viable subjects for inclusion, so it's imho better to err on the side of caution. I sometimes convert A7 tags on such articles into {{subst:prod-nn}} which is a quite good balance between A7 and AFD and gives the creator and the community time to fix problems. The majority of prods are not contested anyway. The important lesson of this tagging probably is that you should ignore all taggings or edit filter messages or other such things and concentrate on the text: If it claims importance/significance of the subject, it's not an A7, regardless of who wrote it. This tagging I declined a few days ago is probably a good example of a certainly existing COI by the article's creator has lead to an incorrect G11 being applied, i.e. how easy it can be to confuse cleanup tags like coi with deletion reasons.
 * As for the G12s, you have understood this yourself I see. It's a bit of work but in those cases you need to check whether the copyvio text can't be removed (just like G11 with spammy text) instead. It's not policy but I'd further recommend to see whether the copyvio can be rephrased into a viable stub. Let's take this example which was tagged 10 minutes later, then the creator removed the copyvio and which now looks like this (it was my third DYK^^). Sometimes it's better to pause and see if the article can be fixed before tagging it for deletion (per WP:PRESERVE).
 * As for the When of a second RFA, I think January would be fine for most people, that would mean 4.5 to 5.5 months since the last one. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to ask at any time. Regards  So Why  07:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. I'll ask Secret to hold off for a while. I appreciate your comments. Thank you. 7 08:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome. Glad I could help! Regards  So  Why  08:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On the copyvio topic - please let me know if this history is more what you would expect to see: Mykolayiv State Agrarian University. There's essentially nothing left but the lead section which I had to re-write because it was also copyvio, but I guess the point is that having something there to build upon is better than nothing.   7  00:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I mean in those cases. It's a bit more work but now Wikipedia contains more information than before, i.e. the basic details of that university and someone else who has more knowledge about the subject might stumble upon it and expand it. I don't know about others but I feel more inclined to expand stubs than I do to create redlinked articles. Regards  So  Why  13:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Great - thanks.  7  13:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy to hear that. If you have any other questions or want any other input, my door is always open (metaphorically speaking of course ) Regards  So Why  14:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Pat Murray AfD
Very good closing statement, thanks.  Grsz 11  17:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! Seeing that you nominated that article, it really means a lot to me. Regards  So  Why  17:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I was a bit surprised by the no concensus decision. It seems abundantly clear that the article fails WP:GNG and would fail it no matter how much editors try to improve it. As I understand it, the logic behind WP:ATHLETE was to reduce AfD time and debate by giving a free pass to articles that are very likely to pass WP:GNG because they are about athletes that get regular coverage because they play professionally. It certainly makes sense that an athlete playing in NFL matches on a somewhat regular basis (or even once) would have this type of coverage, but as we showed in the AfD itself, it's not a reasonable assumption for someone that is so far down the depth chart that he hasn't played (and may never play) for his team. Perhaps there needs to be further discussion on this, but there is a discussion at WP:BIO which seems to support my view. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in on the butt-in, but a couple of points.
 * I personally don't think there is the slightest shred of ambiguity about what "compete" means in the guideline. Webster's is pretty clear on the point, and any alternative interpretation buggers logic (as I stated at the AfD, there are lots of supporting roles that help a team win a game that are not "competing", and this is obviously one of them). As such, I think the reasoning in the close is erroneous. (This is true regardless of the lack of consensus for clarification or reversal on the ATH talk page.)
 * AfD outcomes need not be "correct". The closing admin/editor has discretion to ignore unsupported opinions or opinions supported without regard (or with fallacious regard) to guideline or policy.
 * However, that discretion is just that&mdash;discretion. The closing admin is permitted to consider opinions supported by reference to reasoning beyond the guidelines. A good close as "no consensus" is reachable in this manner, and hence while the closing statement is unsupportable, the close is valid.
 * Just my $0.06. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  01:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The job of the closing admin at an AFD is not to judge why WP:ATH was created or how a word has to be interpreted. I closed the AFD based on the result of the discussion, not on what I personally think. A fair share of people discussing the article in question have expressed to understand "compete" in WP:ATH differently than "playing in a game" after all. Whatever one personally thinks, there is no doubt that there is such a number of people who support a wider interpretation of "competing" as was made clear during the AFD and it would have been erroneous to say that consensus is against them. And WP:GNG does not have to be met if another notability guideline is met. As I wrote in my closing statement, neither side denied that GNG was not met, the discussion was almost absolutely about whether the subject meets WP:ATH or not. Jogurney, you mention a discussion on WT:BIO that supports your argument? The crucial point here is though that this discussion did not happen before the AFD. At the time of the closing of the AFD, there simply was a disagreement on how to interpret the word "compete" in the guideline and neither side was more validly supported by written guidelines at that point of time. I have no problem with this being clarified in the guideline itself to support one side of the argument or another but it's not my job as the closing admin to replace a disagreement on how to interpret a guideline during an AFD with my personal opinion which interpretation is correct. Regards  So Why  09:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * SoWhy, as I stated, I have no beef with the closure, but it is inaccurate to suggest that the discretion to ignore opinions not consistent with guidelines doesn't require the closing admin to interpret the guidelines. If ten people argued that playing in college satisfied ATH, or winning the Eastern South Bayside Film Festival constituted a major award for purposes of FILM, I assume you would feel comfortable concluding that those arguments are not consistent with the applicable guidelines. Despite that conclusion, you would be within your authority to conclude that despite those arguments being inconsistent with policy, they are sufficient evidence that the guidelines do not reflect the consensus of interested editors, or should not be ignored for whatever other reason. This is equally such a case. The guideline is not ambiguous, and claiming that it is simply because some people (seemingly intentionally) misinterpret it (presumably because they disagree with its consequences) is wrong. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  09:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we have to agree to disagree then. In this case I do not think there is sufficient evidence that the guidelines do not reflect consensus but that there is a dispute on how to read the guidelines. No one in that discussion claimed that WP:ATH was incorrect, they just disputed the interpretation of the word "compete" and I can see why this is a possibly valid interpretation: Take my example with the 2nd or 3rd goalkeeper in association football who in most cases never play but still are given medals when the team wins. It's not usual to give medals to people not competing - on the contrary, it's the very nature of medals that they are given to people competing. I think considering such examples there might just be the possibility that there are subjects that are "competing" without playing and as such this interpretation of the word "compete" in WP:ATH may be considered a valid one which you simply disagree with (which is your right to do). Regards  So Why  09:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We can agree to disagree, but your example doesn't help their cause in my mind. A coach doesn't compete, but he gets a Super Bowl ring. The owner doesn't compete, but he gets a Vince Lombardi trophy. I'm not sure it's relevant to my thinking, but as I don't know anything about association football, out of curiosity, are you saying that it is common for a 2nd or 3d goalie to never step on the field during gametime until he is promoted to 1st? <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  09:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In 99% of all cases, the 2nd and 3rd goalkeeper only play if the 1st goalkeeper is injured or can't play for another reason. As such, it's not uncommon for them to be ready to play for a whole season but not play a single game (see Thomas Kraft for example who is 3rd goalkeeper for the FC Bayern Munich and who has not played a single game in the Fußball-Bundesliga) yet they would be given a player's medal if the team won a competition. Mind you, I have no personal preference in this case, it's just an example that came to mind when reading the arguments in favor of a wider interpretation of "compete" in WP:ATH. Regards  So Why  10:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On a separate topic, I see you have made only three mistakes. That's an enviable record! <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  10:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I probably made many more, people just either don't tell me about it or they were differences of opinion (and I probably forgot to update the page). I'd better add a disclaimer that the page does not necessarily reflect the real amount of mistakes I made. ;-) Regards  So Why  10:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response SoWhy. I now understand your reasoning for the no concensus close, and I accept that it was the correct decision. Sorry to be a pain. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it, I'm always happy to help with any problems. Glad we can agree on this of course Have a nice day! Regards  So  Why  14:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)