User talk:SoWhy/Archive 20

Help with dispute
As a well-known Wikipedia administrator, I thought you might be able to help with an edit dispute on Trojan horse (computing) that has developed on its talk page on whether or not the irony in the name Trojan should be mentioned.

Any help from the "friendly talk-page stalkers" is appreciated as well :). Thanks very much! -- Michael Kourlastalk 23:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input! -- Michael Kourlastalk 21:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Always happy to help =) Regards  So Why  21:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Tanisha Thomas
Oh! I need to take it through AfD then? Thanks -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 18:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you feel that deletion is necessary, then yes, please use AFD to do it. I don't think it's one of the articles that should be deleted without discussion. Regards  So Why  18:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Dispute advice
Hello my mentor, I and a few others are involved in a dispute with an anonymous user. Mainly I would like you to look over my responses and tell me what you think. But if you have any advice you'd like to offer on the situation as a whole, that would be welcome too. - Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 03:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is not much to say on this matter. The IP obviously believes that Wikipedia pages should use the nomenclature used by the RCC themselves which collides with the WP:V, WP:NAME and WP:NPOV policies. You can try to explain to them that it's irrelevant to Wikipedia what the church calls themselves but that we use reliable, third-party sources to determine which name to use. If they cannot agree with those fundamental policies, I'm afraid they are at the wrong project and probably have to be restricted from editing if they continue to edit this way. Regards  So Why  09:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

- Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 22:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just added another resp to that page – would you mind reviewing it? I'm trying my best to not just react and flame back, but I want a second opinion.


 * You are probably too much involved now and should step back from it. I have left them a comment explaining that there is a difference in our articles between what they see as a problem and reality. Regards  So Why  22:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

- Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 03:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, yeah, I can see it – ok.

Signupend
FYI, the capitalisation is already mentioned in MediaWiki:Fancycaptcha-createaccount which appears at the top of the signup page for users not logged in. Rd232 talk 10:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh, thanks for telling me. I did not know that... Well, feel free to revert me of course :-) Regards  So Why  10:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well duplication isn't always a bad thing; or maybe it's the other mention that should go. Might be worth discussing on the talk page or at WP:MWM. Rd232 talk 16:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it needs some prominent mention, just like the "don't use your company's name stuff". I'd suggest to add them next to the field where you enter the username but I don't know if that's possible... Regards  So Why  16:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not at the moment, AFAIK. However there is supposed to be a complete redesign of the signup page in the works, to enable a page structure much more like a typical web signup page, with help alongside each form field. No ETA, and I don't remember who was working on it. Possibly User:Anomie. Rd232 talk 17:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Computer problems?
If you need any help fixing your computer problem(s) and are able to run TeamViewer, drop me a line – I might be able to do a little good. - Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 21:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the offer but my errors are more of the BSOD-when-trying-to-start-Windows kind (specifically errors STOP 0x7B, 0x7E and 0x24), so it wouldn't work. It could be a corrupted file system or a defective hard drive, so I am currently running Samsung's ESTOOL on the hard disk and have formatted the partition in question (after a 1:1 backup using Linux). I mainly need time since it's a large disk to check and as such, I cannot use the PC for as long as that takes, plus the time to restore Windows / reinstall it. Regards  So Why  21:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

- Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 22:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's too bad. Well, I was about to share a link with you, but from your description it sounds like you're one step ahead of me. Hope you get it fixed soon.

That's right i'm a Vandal.
My ancestors were pagan tribes which looted Rome. I'm not a Goth, Spaniard, or Ummayad. I'm just a lowly Vandal tribesman having fun sharing information with the good people of the village of wikimedia. בינה תפארת (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you want me to block you or is there any other reason why you are telling me this? oO Regards  So Why  09:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If there's a username (identity) conflict please notify me. thanks.
this has been my 2nd account since getting broadband. my 1st account on this IP has a fairly clean record, but i was getting the impression that i was inadvertently annoying people who might or might not have a good reason to hate my friends or my peopleHomo sapiens sapiens. בינה תפארת (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup help
Hi again. You deleted some of his contribs which I had tagged as G12 while I was gone for a few hours and it looks like he's been busy. Please see contribs. Many whole pages were blatant copyvio. I've reverted a few more additions to existing pages which were also copyvio. I just can't tell if it's all bad (and spammy) or if there's anything worth saving. 7 13:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look and take care of those articles that are pure copyvio. The additions can be reverted by anyone after all. Regards  So Why  13:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - looks like that take cares of it.  7  13:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. If they continue, report them to WP:ANI or WP:AIV. Regards  So Why  13:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ingra House
I appreciate your work, but I don't appreciate your smug answer. What makes you think I have not already reviewed the criteria for Speedy Deletion several times over? You should really be ashamed of your uppity attitude. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The message you received is a predefined template with a standard text that the CSDHelper script uses when notifying users. I am sorry if you felt it to be "smug" but since I did not write the text, it was certainly not meant this way. I merely chose to notify you so you know the speedy has been declined and you can take the action you deem appropriate given these new circumstances. Regards  So Why  17:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User page
I just wanted to thank you for giving me the inspiration for my user page. -- Michael Kourlastalk – contribs 02:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Happy you liked it. Two things, if I may: First, I decided to be bold and made this change. Hope you don't mind. Second, I think you might want to choose an image that is more panorama-y (maybe crop the current one), so that the userbox headers at the bottom are visible on a normal screen resolution. Regards  So  Why  09:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: References for article page
Hello, I was wondering..please could you tell me if references are okay as they are. i would like to add to existing page. thanks

M....,W "external link Who's Who 2009. A&C Black Publishers Ltd." M....,W "external link www.ukwhoswho.com/public/home.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissa12345 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you use the citation templates to cite a book. If you look at Template:Cite book, it gives you examples on how to use them. Regards  So Why  18:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Page protection request denied
The following IP addresses have been entering false information every few days and it's hard to keep track of that. if it doesn't justify full protection, the semi-protection that recently ended needs to be continued. Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.53.64.71 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.28.93.242 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.4.10.175


 * Sorry but activity yesterday does not warrant protection today. There is no evidence of such behaviour today and as such no reason to assume it will continue. Please re-request protection when such activity happens again. Regards  So Why  15:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

RfAr/Tothwolf drafter
Thank you for your attention to detail. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. I was surprised to find it to be changed, so I thought I can spare others the need to check the main page themselves. On a side note, it might be a good idea to consider a central page for the header information, which is then trancluded to the case pages, e.g.  is used when creating the case pages and on Template:RFARHeader there is a "switch:" command with different cases and their stats. It could save the clerks some work. rfatally provides a similar functionality for RFAs currently, with  for example being displayed as . Regards  So  Why  15:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. However, if you think we need to edit the switches in the templates, I'm sorry but you are talking to totally the wrong person. I can barely string four tildes together some days. I'll try to point someone more technically competent toward this discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I am not really experienced in that area myself. I just saw that it's already done with Template:ACA in a similar way and I thought it could be done with the case nav as well (although ACA uses ifeq instead of switch). I wouldn't touch it myself though, I think that would stretch WP:BOLD a bit too far ;-) Regards  So Why  15:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

German MPs

 * Thanks! I love to stalk Xeno ;-)
 * Btw, if you need help in that area, I am both German and interested in politics as well, so I might be able to help if you need anything. Regards  So Why  13:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Danke, ich komm bestimmt auf dich zu. Mach dir ein schönes WE! Jared Preston (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keine Ursache! Wünsch dir ebenfalls ein schönes Wochenende :-) Gruß  So Why  19:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, jetzt hab ich was für dich: Ich habe vor zweieinhalb Jahren einen Artikel über den damaligen TeBe Fußballer Robert Scholl gestartet; allerdings, was ich damals nicht wusste, ist dass Robert Scholl der Vater der Geschwister Scholl war. Da der Fußballer des gleichen Namens meiner Meinung nach WP:A7 ist, möchte ich fragen: wie können wir den Artikel löschen oder schieben, um einen über den Politiker schreiben zu können? Würde hier deine Hilfe schätzen. Jared Preston (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Kein Grund ihn zu löschen. Ich hab ihn nach Robert Scholl (footballer) verschoben und nen Stub auf Robert Scholl erstellt mit dem du/wir arbeiten können. Gruß  So Why  21:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merci! Jared Preston (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the decline
Thanks-you, SoWhy, for declining the speedy delete of User:Drolz09/Quotations. As you note, no names are mentioned. It isn't a close call. These actions against Drolz are bordering on harassment. I hope you will keep an eye out. -- SPhilbrick  T  21:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. That's one of the classic cases where MFD should take care of it. Regards  So Why  21:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
...for looking out for my userpage. As an aside, would you take a look at what's going on at Drunvalo Melchizedek? I am at a total loss here... Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem.
 * A fascinating case, indeed. I have left them a personalized warning to stop adding personal commentary, analysis and copyvio to the article. If they continue, I or another admin will probably have to block them. Regards  So Why  11:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it. See also Template:Follower of school of enlightment in 1999 took on a research project World Water Day. WTF? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, those who don't want to hear... - I have blocked the user now and delete the template you mentioned, it was copied from multiple websites as far as I saw. Regards  So Why  12:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sorry to see you go... (Katerenka)
Im very sorry to see you go Kate. While I respect your desision, I hope you return. Good luck and we'll all miss you :)-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 11:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What he said. Regards  So Why  11:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per her request, please stay off her page. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 12:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD you may be interested in
I just nominated Zack Luye for deletion: Articles_for_deletion/Zack_Luye. I wanted to let you know because I see you removed the prod on the page earlier, and you might have valuable input. I was inclined to add a prod but I decided upon AfD; I think your point establishes that this at least warrants a discussion. Thanks! Cazort (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I tagged it for PROD after declining the speedy. It's one of the articles which fails A7 speedy deletion since it claims importance/significance but where nothing establishes notability. Regards  So Why  23:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vr-zone (2nd nomination)
Please see Articles for deletion/Vr-zone (2nd nomination). You declined a speedy on the article. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Zip the Cure
Why did you delete Zip the Cure? This is a project run by a fifteen year old with state captains in 21 states. A 501c IRS approved charity, with approval from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Just google them and you will see several news articles on them. Please reinstate. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.196.110.24 (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The article did not mention any of those news articles nor did it indicate why the charity should be considered important or significant. If you can provide any of those news articles you mention (not blogs that is), I will be happy to restore the article. Regards  So Why  22:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

B l o r t a s h
I hope I'm not overreacting. A while back, someone came to KDVE and changed "Spanish Contemporary" to "Bl_rt_sh Contemporary" (I don't even want to spell the word as to include this in the Google results for that word). I reverted said change. Now someone comes along and inserts that word all over the article. I reverted that change too. As far as I can tell, it's not a word – if it was, Google would have some record of it, I would think. Anyway, I simply cannot understand the motivation behind edits involving this word. I looked through said Google results and came up with a small bit of wiki-background. It's not much, but maybe it would be helpful. I wonder if any of those have anything at all to do with any of the following, which involve the KDVE article: Make anything of all this? - Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 07:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/Godemperorofdune (look thru a few of the most recent diffs)
 * User talk:Edison/Archive_2 (look at the end of the section, under the Signpost)
 * User talk:Edison/Archive_3
 * Special:Contributions/SackerofRome
 * Special:Contributions/Mushishiman
 * Special:Contributions/YukariTakeba (the two most recent diffs)


 * Looks like a off-wiki organized vandalism attack, kind of the like 4chan likes. The deleted contents of the article of the same name give a clue, which talks about a "time traveling bear from the 31st century", i.e. it confirms the vandalism hypothesis. I'd say RBI is the best way to deal with it. Regards  So Why  13:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

- Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 05:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention the bear, I recall seeing a page in those Google results mentioning the same thing. It's in the signature of the first post on this page. FWIW.

My RfA
Hi SoWhy. I don't want to clutter up my RfA with comments but I would like to ask you what experience I should get. I am primarily a contributor to wikipedia but across AfD, MfD and RfD I have taken part in 85 discussions. More importantly I nominated 17 of these, closed 2 and contributed more than 10 edits to 4 of them. I count 13 prod tags and 14 speedy tags and 13 out of the 14 speedies were eventually deleted. The reason there are not many more is that I don't hang around the top of the list waiting to pounce and I prefer to give articles the benefit of a day or two. I was twice caught up in the WP:NEWT experiment and got positive comments from you (on Richard Rogler) and from Ed. Polargeo (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK add some more speedies I broke my general rule and did hang around at the top of the new pages and nominated Theherojames MaloneBailey, LLP and The Chris and James 5 o'clock Showdown. Also PROD tagged Phil Collins News but the tag was removed, it will end up being deleted anyway. You have to be quick though :). Polargeo (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand and I am not saying that you are bad with deletion in general. But less than 20 speedy taggings is simply not enough for me to judge your skills from if you say you want to work in that area. Even I, who is very strict with CSD, delete 70-80% of all taggings, so I expect that one wanting to work in that area to display some more activity before I can judge their skills in that area. Regards  So Why  20:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay no worries. Maybe I would have been better off not saying that I would work in csd. Still looks like I'll have to go away and come back in 2-3 months. Regards Polargeo (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry too much about it. Just work a bit on those things, you will do fine the next time then. Remember, many great admins failed their first RFA and some who passed unanimously were desysopped later. If you need any help or feedback with anything, feel free to ask me at any time. Regards  So Why  22:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays!



 * Considering that the temperatures have changed from -10 °C two days ago to 10 °C today, I think I can say thank you and wish you the same. If they hadn't, I'd probably be angry to be reminded of how cold it is outside Regards  So  Why  19:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ...meanwhile, we still aren't adjusting to the midday temps of 62 F. *shivers violently* Jamie  S93  20:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From my point of view, I'd say: Lucky you. I was freezing here. I even needed my winter coat and scarf!!! I didn't need them last year at all.  So Why  21:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Patrollbot
Hey there, I thought (because of your participation in the conversation here) that you would like to know that I coded a bot to mark CSDed AFDed and PRODed new-pages as patrolled. See the bot's discussion for approval here. I would appreciate your comment. NOTE: I am not trying to canvas you, I just wanted some input. Tim1357 (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yo ho ho


 Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.


 * I don't know how I missed this, there must have been too many messages on that day. Please accept my belated thanks! Regards  So  Why  10:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Closing that RFA
Tsk. Thanks. I had that nagging "did I turn the gas off?" feeling when I shut down for the evening. Thanks for topping/tailing it, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. We all leave the gas on sometimes, luckily here someone else can turn it off. Sometimes I wish I had such service in real life but then I remember that this would mean that anyone could be in my flat and it's far too messy for that Regards  So  Why  21:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
  Click there to open your card! → → → Dear , Wishing you, your family, and friends a very merry Christmas (or whatever you celebrate at this time of year), and I hope that the new year will be a good one, in real life, and on the wiki. There is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit; it's a special time of year of almost everyone. ;) Love and best wishes,  Meaghan  - Merry Christmas!  - 00:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, although I don't celebrate Christmas as such (being an atheist and all), thank you. I do celebrate the chance to have a few days in peace and getting presents ) although I probably end up doing all the stuff I should have done for weeks now... Have a good time Regards  So  Why  10:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.
really useful counsel. much appreciated. i'm actually a glove marionette of an other user in good standing with about 200 edits. all the best,


 * yosef


 * בינה תפארת (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I am a bit overwhelmed by how many people want to wish me Merry Christmas, so let's just say thank you. I don't have to observe the holiday to appreciate it. Regards  So  Why  20:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!
  

 Set Sail  For The   Seven Seas    3° 44' 30" NET    00:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, although your choice of colors is a bit...rainbowy Regards  So  Why  09:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

closing of Polargeo's rfa
I got Polargeo's RfA from my watchlist. I went to vote and found that it was thankfully not yet closed. I do see now that TRM had removed it from WP:RFA before myself and another had voted. I am just curious why since the RfA itself was not closed at the time that our votes are removed and not counted in the final tally. The expectation that i would go searching to see if it was un-transcluded when it is still open would seem to be an illogical expectation. The closing time of RfAs has never been precisely enforced.  delirious  ☯ ~ happy christmas~  04:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * See two sections up. TRM meant to close the RFA at this time, so we have to "feign" that the close was done at the time TRM removed the RFA from the main page and notified Polargeo of the result, even if he forgot to add the closing templates to the RFA itself. After all, the !votes added afterwards have not been taken into consideration since the crat already judged consensus at this time. As such, I removed them since otherwise the finalized RFA would not reflect the state TRM used to determine consensus when he closed it. While the closing time of RFAs has never been enforced (and indeed several proposals to do so have been rejected), in this case the RFA was closed by the time you !voted - it was just lacking the appropriate templates and signature, which I did for him. Regards  So Why  10:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite so. What SoWhy said.  I forgot to top-and-tail the RFA.  My apologies.  SoWhy covered me, and rightly so, and thankfully so.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * @TRM Covering you is the concern i am raising. You made a mistake that misrepresented the status of the RfA to myself and another user. Recognising the good faith votes and revising your tally would be the decent thing to do. 59/33/15 vs 61/33/15 is not enough of a change that it would alter the outcome of the RfA. If 20 people had voted between the time you intended to close the RfA and when SoWhy noticed and changed it to closed this would be a rather different issue. If noöne had voted then it would have been fortunate and easily handled. I am unsure if there is already any precedent in this matter.
 * @SoWhy I have since looked into the edits that have been made and see that there were indications elsewhere that it was closed. That the RfA itself was left open by mistake for 81 minutes is beyond reasonable. If everyone were expected to each and every time check all 6 of the possible pages for the current status of an RfA that would be absurd. Coming to an RfA from your watchlist precludes and bypasses all other pages where a conflicting status could be discovered. As you said, it was "lacking the appropriate templates and signature" to indicate that it was closed, therefore default to believe it is open and vote in good faith.
 * I realise that i am of the dissenting opinion, even among my wiki-friends. I just happen to be one who takes all of her voting seriously, even those called not-votes. Happy Christmas & a Joyous New Year  delirious  ☯ ~ nollaig shona duit~  14:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand where you are coming from. On the other time, you did not check the history, did you? Let's think of the following hypothetical situation: TRM had closed it with all templates and stuff and then some user came around and reverted him. You and the other person do not notice this (not checking the history), !vote in it, then I come around, notice that TRM already notified Polargeo of the result 80 minutes prior, discover the revert and restore the close. In this hypothetical case you would still have !voted in good faith, but you would not see any problem with me removing those !votes. So the only question we have to consider is why crats add those templates - it's to signify that they assessed the RFA, judged consensus and decided what to do next, is it not? So here we had a (special) situation where the crat in question assessed the RFA, judged consensus and decided what to do next (notify the candidate) - the only thing missing is the notice that he had done so. I understand that you acted in good faith (but so did I) but where to draw the line? Can 10 people !vote in that time but 20 can't? But since we don't count votes but arguments, would it really make a difference how many people !vote between the closing done by TRM and me adding the templates?
 * But in the end, it comes down to a difference in opinion, that is correct. You think that the !votes should stay so that the candidate knows what you think of them, I think that the final state of the RFA should reflect the state in which the crat judged it. Both viewpoints are valid of course but since you can tell the candidate that you would have supported them on their talk page, I thought the RFA can be returned to the state in which TRM closed it. But I understand your viewpoint and I am sorry that you disagree with what I did. If I can do something nice for you to make up for it, please let me know Happy whatever you are celebrating!  Regards  So  Why  14:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

RFA
Thank you for that. Secret already asked me earlier this month I think, and we decided to wait until the new year. This doesn't go to say that I wouldn't mind one today or tomorrow. Per the username issue, I've thought of changing it before, but it would probably bug my ocd to change it. I've never really thought of that issue before though, so I'll ponder making the change and get back to you. In all likelihood, it would feel weird to change it and then run an RFA. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And by the way, this was never my nickname. In a way, it is my unified login for the entire internet. Appropriate nicknames I've had include KR, K-Ruth, and Steve (I don't understand why). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant nickname, not nickname I agree that it might look a bit weird if you change it immediately before an RFA but on the other hand the risk of confusion I mentioned is something you might want to address. Regards  So  Why  16:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well now you know my nicknames for real life should our paths ever cross. I can start the ball right now, as I know I'll have Secret's support, and I have gone through some quite interesting hoops since we last talked about an RFA. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want me to, I would be willing to co-nominate you if/when you run (if I don't find any reason not to that is ;-)). Regards  So Why  19:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to start the page, I can answer the questions. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the fact that you have failed a few RFAs already, the last one in July, I would prefer to examine your edits since then very thoroughly before being able to decide whether to nominate you, which might take some time. Currently, I think you should wait some more time before running again. You waited a year between the 2nd and 3rd attempt, so you should wait more than 5 months for the next one, especially since it will be your 4th and the concerns that have been mentioned in the 3rd one are serious enough that many will require more time no matter how ready you really are. Regards  So Why  21:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to send a barrage of e-mails to you concerning what went back and forth between Secret and I, but he basically told me to wait until the new year (although I've been through a lot since then, so I don't think it would hurt to be early) and I was also told to become involved in ANI, and AFDs. I've been in the ANI territory intermittently, and I recently have been there. I also had a quite contentious SPI, so i've been covered in conflicts in a way. I can see where you're coming from, but after 5 months, I'm getting a bit antsy (bad, I know), and I'm willing to jump into the ring of fire at anytime. I actually ran in August, but no harm done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is worse then, because 4 months are surely not enough for most people who opposed you. I know you want to help out more soon but I'd advise you to not run before February/March 2010. Btw, you really need to be careful what you mark as "minor edit". You should never mark a talk page comment as a minor edit. In fact, anything that adds content, no matter if it's in article space or outside it, should never be marked as a minor edit. Minor edits should be ticked only when making edits that are unimportant to notice (e.g. spelling fixes etc.). Regards  So Why  23:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see where you're coming from. I've contacted others concerning this, and I'll go with the average of their lengths. Concerning the minor edit thing, early on I was told about it, and I have had it set to do this since since I am fearful of marking everything not minor. Oh well, I guess it could be changed, but I really don't think about it, so occassionally I catch myself, but I usually don't, and it seems to go unnoticed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to be fearful about. Minor edits are defined at Help:Minor edit and if you ever want to become an admin, you need to show that you understand such features. You would probably benefit if you read the page and change your preferences to follow it. Trust me, I know what I am talking about, I got opposed for the very same reason and I only marked a few edits incorrectly. Regards  So Why  09:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Way ahead of you buddy. I actually decided to do it after I read this, and I think I have already avoided a few "D'oh!" moments. The one pain of an RFA is when one editor opposes you on something seemingly silly but so important. Thanks again, and happy whatever you celebrate! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Usurp of Black Shadow
Hi! I have suggested the usurp to Black Shadow on IRC to that user, because of SUL. I can confirm it, as bureaucrat on it.wiki (he was renamed by me last september). He will confirm anyway. Bye! -- Roberto  Segnali all'Indiano  20:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I will leave a message to our crats on the relevant rename page that you can confirm the request but I cannot speak for them if that is enough. Thanks for the message anyway, much appreciated. Regards  So  Why  20:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

TimelordsEndofTime.png Use
Hello there,

I have included the photo on the Time Lord page, to show the current design of the Panopticon - it ties in with culture and reference. Did you not feel it was significant that so many Time Lords were depicted as having survived (on Gallifrey to, of note) rather than just the Lord High President? It was also an impressive shot, so I thought that sanctioned its use.

Regards

HenryPage23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryPage23 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It makes more sense on Time Lord, that is correct, although the resolution is still far too high for a non-free image, so I have uploaded a smaller version of the same file. Once part two airs, we probably can get a better image of it anyway.
 * PS: Remember to sign your messages on talk pages such as this one using ~ . Regards  So Why  11:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I have added a topic on the Talk for the End of Time page about the related topic, I would value your comments SoWhy. Many Regards, Thetictocmonkey (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

RFA?
I'm going to make you regret your comment on my ER Just kidding. But it would be great if you can offer some suggestions, comments, etc., about a potential RFA in the (hopefully near) future. Tim Song (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is much to regret for that comment. People have pointed out multiple times that you behave like an admin already, so that's a good foundation for a RFA. Considering your editing activity, you only became active in August, so if you ran now, people might oppose you for not having enough experience (my editing history looks similar though - I ran in Oct 08). Another problem could be the distribution of your edits across namespaces: You have 50% in the project namespace but only a mere 17% in the article namespace, which will probably make some people wary to support you as they will think you are not here to build an encyclopedia. I suggest you work a bit in that area before running, maybe get a DYK or two to prove that you know how to build content (maybe by fixing articles you come across on NPP, for example you could have fixed this article instead of tagging it which Eastmain did afterwards - a number of those DYKs I have were articles I declined to speedy delete). Nowadays people stopped expecting a candidate to have GAs or FAs to their credit but most still want to see that the candidate knows how to write content before handing them the power to delete it. If you work 1-2 months in that area, you will probably have been active long enough and in the right way to avoid such concerns and have a smooth RFA. Hope that helps. If you have any specific questions, please feel free to ask them at any time. Regards  So  Why  22:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow...you are of course correct about the article; I was looking for something to test User:Tim Song/Kissle at that time, and the article looked like a clear speedy candidate, having been left that way for several hours. So I just tagged it without searching for sources. As to content writing, I'm frankly not a good writer. Now, I can try to do it, of course&mdash;from what I've seen getting a DYK isn't that hard&mdash;but then it sounds and looks like I'm just trying to alter my editing profile pre-RFA. After all, I can't honestly say that I would do a lot of content work after I pass a (hypothetical) RFA; it feels somewhat disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Timotheus Canens (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean. When I ran for admin, I had no content work either (all my DYKs are from mid 2009 to now) and as such, I certainly don't expect you to become an article writer. It's just that some people expect an admin to know how content writing works before they trust them with the deletion button and thus I think you should use opportunities to improve rather to tag when doing NPP work in order to demonstrate that you are not one of those who think of it as a WP:MMORPG but who approach deletion related subjects with the knowledge in mind that things sometimes can and should be fixed instead of deleted. Regards  So Why  09:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Requests
Hello, can you remove old categories ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_Jabber_clients and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_XMPP_clients Thanks in advance, regards — Neustradamus ( ✉  ) 16:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I deleted the latter one, as you created it, but I cannot delete the former one. I tagged it for speedy deletion though, it can be deleted in 4 days. Regards  So Why  16:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! — Neustradamus ( ✉  ) 16:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The standard and naming convention for these categories on the English Wikipedia is to place Free and open source software programs into a "Free ..." category and the non-free programs into the parent category when there are enough articles to justify a child category (generally more than 2 or 3 articles). The same is usually done with Shareware software. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've turned Category:Free Jabber clients into a category redirect for Category:Free XMPP clients and will be adding Category:Free XMPP clients to the articles where Neustradamus changed Category:Free Jabber clients to Category:XMPP clients. I'm not sure why Neustradamus continues to rename "Jabber" to "XMPP" (many people have asked him on his talk page) but the upmerge of free clients into the parent category made no sense. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it is XMPP client, and after, I thought that one category can be better, like other instant messenger — Neustradamus ( ✉  ) 17:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (I replied to Neustradamus on my talk page but I will copy it here for the TPS who are following this discussion.)
 * OK, so why other instant messenger have not this category ? and about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOC_protocol / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOC2_protocol when the merge will be ? because since two years soon and not done — Neustradamus ( ✉  ) 18:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * With IM client articles specifically, not all client types and protocols will have child categories. There were enough Jabber/XMPP client articles where Category:Jabber clients and Category:Free Jabber clients were justified though. Articles about FOSS IM client software should be in Category:Free instant messaging clients with Jabber/XMPP clients in the intersecting Category:Free XMPP clients. Btw, Category redirect would have been an easier way to rename these categories since a bot will automatically recategoriese articles into the new category. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, have you see for TOC protocol ? And it is possible to launch a bot for change [[Image:]] to [[File:]] ? — Neustradamus ( ✉  ) 18:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not merge those myself right now but I can take a look at them later. There should be no reason to change Image: to File:. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. I have seen sometimes [[Image:]] change in [[File:]] and I think it is a good idea... — Neustradamus ( ✉  ) 19:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

tbaMUD deletion
sowhy,

Thanks for your contributions to wikipedia. But I think your deletion of tbaMUD may have been hasty.

Unfortunately someone created the tbaMUD article 2 years ago and did it improperly so it was deleted (as it should have been). I decided to recreate it and mirrored it off exsting Wiki entries of similar MUD codebases CircleMUD DikuMUD etc. It was immediately deleted saying it was a recreation of something that was already deleted.... This after spending several hours writing and referencing it properly. Any help or advice on how to get make my article acceptable would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, and happy holidays.

Nate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Winters (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your frustration. Unfortunately, your recreated article did not address the reasons the previous article was deleted. The previous deletion discussion ended in consensus that the topic is not notable enough for a standalone article and your recreation did nothing to change this, since you have not provided any reliable sources to establish such notability. I can restore the article to your userspace and you can request a deletion review about the deletion discussion 2 years ago but unless you manage to rectify the concerns that were mentioned back then, I doubt it will be successful. Regards  So Why  17:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Please restore to userspace and I will request review. Thank you. Nathan Winters (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. It's now at User:Nathan Winters/TbaMUD. Remember though, before you request review of the articles for deletion discussion from 2007, which lead to the deletion, you should rectify the concerns raised, otherwise you will not be successful. For example, while you have used references, you have not use third-party, reliable sources as references that would establish notability. Neither primary sources (i.e. material published by the subject) nor forums or blogs satisfy this requirement. Regards  So Why  08:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Using File:Symbol support vote.svg and similar in RfX discussions
I have responded to the above comment left on my talk page, along with a question for you! Regards, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 17:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to The End of Time. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. ''You should know more than anyone that we require sources. They may have been wiped out during the Time War and brought back by other methods...doesn't equate to survival..claiming it as such is original research'' magnius (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we disagree on how to understand the word "survive" in this case. I always thought that "survive" can describe any reappearance after being believed to be dead but obviously that's not the common usage, so I will not mind it being changed. I do believe that you should assume good faith on my actions though and I don't think it's fair to assume that I deliberately added information that is unsourced. And of course WP:DTTR exists for a reason, you could have simply left me a message without using the template, it's impersonal. Regards  So Why  18:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

reply
oh really my bad.-- Steam   Iron  10:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"decline" without further action
I've noticed a large number of speedy or prod "declines" on your part, of clearly problematic articles. In some cases you convert speedies to a prod, which I applaud, but in others you simply remove the tag. I think that's problematic. I would hope that, instead, as an admin, you would at the very least tag those articles as either not clear about their notability, or even less imposingly, in need of cleanup. Instead you leave a large number of very problematic articles alone, patrolled, and without any indication that they need further attention.

I hope you'll address this concern in the future. I think it's a major issue. There are a lot of subpar articles on the encyclopedia. Even if you believe they don't meet the CSD criteria, I would hope that you would recognize those articles that are in need of further attention, and at the very least add them to the overwhelming list of cleanup ready articles. That list helps editors target their cleanup, and improve the encyclopedia. Cheers. Shadowjams (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Imho, the new page patrollers should tag them if they notice problems - I just check whether they meet the speedy deletion criteria. I tag and clean up quite a large number of those articles actually - if I am able to. But honestly I think it's the wrong way of thinking that if new page patrollers tag articles incorrectly for speedy deletion and then simply abandon them, it's now my duty to do what they should have done. I will agree to do more of those things but the problem can't be solved by that alone. It probably needs a new approach to new page patrol, so that patrollers tag an article for problems even if they tag it for speedy deletion. Regards  So Why  12:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I think it's all of our responsibility to make sure the encyclopedia's improved. It's not about NPP or CSD patrollers, or whomever. But you've been around here enough to know that tagging is often a do-and-forget activity. At least putting a notability or cleanup tag on those articles makes them easily accessible to future cleanups.


 * I think as an admin, particularly one who removes a tag, it is your duty to do what they should have done. In a perfect world that means cleaning up every page to stub class. In the real world that means tagging it, in the least.


 * Thanks for your consideration; as I said, I think this is critically important to the encyclopedia, and your example is meaningful. Spurt. Shadowjams (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I have been preaching this myself and a number of DYKs I wrote were articles previously tagged for speedy deletion, so I know the problem. So I will try to think about that more in the future, just like everyone else should. On a side note, while we are talking about improvements, you should remember to use edit summaries on all your edits. Regards  So Why  12:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding in depth. I appreciate it.


 * Don't worry about the edit summaries. I'm clocking pretty good numbers, and I think the places I miss it are quite clear. Shadowjams (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's the least I could do if you notify me of valid concerns you have. Thanks for reminding me. Regards  So  Why  13:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that...(remelc)
Not being familiar with the set-up of these things, I hadn't realised that he had not formalised (transcluded) the RfC. Anyway, its far better taken care of by "auhority figures" who know what they are talking about! Sorry if I wasted your time. Leaky Caldron  11:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. I am no more of an "authority figure" in RfX matters than you are (since neither of us is a crat) but such cases are almost always those of a new user trying to help but not knowing how to. As such leaving them a welcome and a message is something we all can do. Regards  So  Why  11:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Hi, i tagged articles because most of them are unsourced and unreliable info.the mentioned people are just journalists not notable people.anyways u have to decide as a admin,i can't question thatLinguisticgeek (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You can of course question my actions. It would be a funny world if you couldn't. But those taggings do not fit the criterion you used because being an anchor on TV does in fact indicate some importance/significance. For A7, it's irrelevant whether it's sourced or unreliable, all it needs is a credible claim of importance or significance and that exists here. You should take them to WP:AFD if you think they are not notable. Regards  So Why  12:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings
Hope your staying warm up there (the 50s are as low as it gets here) I know you get these requests often but just wanted to stop by and get your opinion on some areas I that may be helpful in bettering myself and helping in regards to the project. I have been pretty active in DYK and helping with AfC. Started working more on some projects such as WPmedicine, and WPlost should finally start up again around late January. Was hoping you could point out some beneficial areas to get into or areas of my editting I need to work on. Thanks again for your help in the past as it is very appreciated. Kindly Calmer   Waters  17:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Up where? I live in a world with the metric system and temperatures of -10 °C here. ;-)
 * There are not many tips I can give you. Just work in whatever area you feel comfortable in, there are many to choose from. =)
 * On a side note, although I should not criticize others about such things, but you may want to use a spell checker (like the one Firefox has built in) to avoid obvious spelling mistakes. If you ever consider running for admin, there have been instances where people opposed candidates who they thought had a bad grasp on spelling and/or grammar and I would hate to see that happen to you, especially since it can be rectified easily. Regards  So Why  10:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I had meant up north as I remember your from an area that is rather cold this time of year. We kind of lack a winter where I reside, but make up for it with an extended summer. Thank you for taking the time to bring this to my attention, plus the browser tip. ;-) It will certainly be addressed. Kindly Calmer   Waters  18:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm from Germany, so I am rather east from you iirc Regards  So  Why  18:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
I'd like to thank you for your closure of Articles for deletion/Jagernaut, and especially the closing commentary. Even though the outcome of the discussion is not what I would have wanted, I appreciate the way you have closed this nomination and your explanation. Debresser (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words Regards  So  Why  19:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of "Yahero" article
Hi there,

I understand now why the article was deleted and have taken a crack at a rewrite. A couple of questions I have for you as you're able to help this become a good article:
 * What balancing material can I bring to the article if it still appears as advertisement?
 * Do you suggest waiting until the world is active to create an article about it?
 * Do I need to go into more business facts about the world?

Thanks and happy holidays.

YAHERO is a Massively Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG) currently being developed by eyeseeTV, a Canadian media producer. YAHERO is designed for children ages ages 8 to 11 and incorporates stories and themes from the Bible in a fantastical and allegorical virtual world. In the world, players, known as Yaheroes, customize their characters, explore, play mini-games, chat with friends, earning Hero Points and Lumens that help them level up and unlock exclusive prizes and secrets.

The YAHERO Story The story of the game is that life in the YAHERO world began as a single seed that was planted in the sky by Yahweh in a place known as Light City. Eventually, that seed grew into what is now known as “The Tree of Zioden”. The Tree developed deep roots throughout Light City, but its rich leaves and stout branches reached out and started to create other floating islands within the world. The Tree of Zioden continues to grow and expand as Yaheroes embark on the quests set out for them. Four rivers flow from the Tree of Zioden, providing life to all the other islands within Light City.

Game Play Each month a new online quest is released to all the players in the YAHERO world. Each quest builds onto the story of previous quests, but contains a narrative arch that also stands alone. Each Quest involves a sequence of small missions in which players must interact with the Chozek, the game’s Non-Playing Characters (NPCs), solving puzzles, beating mini-games, and finding any number of hidden objects throughout the world. The completion of some missions depends on players working together to achieve a goal.

Players earn Hero Points by completing missions, and earning enough Hero Points helps them level up. Players also earn Lumens that they can use to power in-game gadgets that give players special abilities such as traveling faster or flying.

Child Safety in YAHERO One of the major concerns in designing YAHERO, or any other multiplayer online game, is finding a way to implement a system that completely protects all children who play the game. Such a system includes but is not limited to: •	Blocking players who are not approved by a parent or guardian •	Instituting and moderating a Safe Chat system which monitors, blocks and limits all words/phrases which are deemed inappropriate •	Enabling human monitors to consistently monitor the world for inappropriate behavior and take appropriate and immediate actions

Players who try and break the safety measures that have been put in place on the YAHERO site may be kicked off the website for an extended period of time or permanently banned based upon their infraction.

Release Plan Yahero is planned for release in the first part of 2010.

Heroist (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The most important thing you need to provide in order to have an article about this subject survive here is reliable, third-party sources that establish it as notable within our guidelines. Unless you can provide such sources, any new article will be deleted just like the last one, just for different reasons. On a side note, you can use your userspace to save such a draft, for example at User:Heroist/Yahero, so you don't have to paste it to someone's page to discuss it. Regards  So Why  22:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Odd admin behavior
I am quite surprised to see an admin resorting to edit-warring - in order to add back a fair-use image instead of using an image confirmed as free-use. and What are your thoughts on this behavior? Cirt (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit warring is always incorrect, no matter what "status" the participants have. As such, both Edokter's second revert and your revert of that revert should not have been done per WP:BRD. Edokter replaced the image (B), I reverted him (R) - but instead of discussing it (D), there were three further reverts by Edokter, you and TreasuryTag before the article was protected. Neither of those reverts should have been done, maybe not even mine (if one considers your replacement 4 days before the "B" action) and certainly not those following it. It's irrelevant why anyone edit warred over it (since it was not content that had to be removed immediately). I can understand Edokter's reasoning that the free image is not a equivalent substitute to the fair use one though, hopefully a discussion can sort this out without further edit-warring. Regards  So Why  10:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, understood, your analysis makes sense. I have started a Request for Comment on the matter, hopefully that will help to resolve it. :) Cirt (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oldest Coffee Company in the World
Hi Mr. SoWhy, Happy New Year! I need your help. Did you know that Ospina Coffee Company is the oldest coffee company in the world? Established in 1835 in Colombia by Don Mariano Ospina Rodriguez. For the last few weeks I have been trying to post an article in Wikipedia, but every time I do so, it is deleted. Some very nice people have tried to help me, but I am not making much progress. I am wondering if you could help me with this project or might know of someone that would. Thank you very much for considering this request. Best regards, --Grancafé 16:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grancafe (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks! As for your article problems, I noticed that there is an article at Ospina Coffee Company and it has not been deleted once. Could you please specify where exactly you see the problem in this case? Regards  So Why  16:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yoda
Are you Yoda in disguise? :D -- Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Yoda I am not...damn! Regards  So  Why  11:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Torchwood/ Rassilon gauntlet
I hear you - but I would contend that my theory has at least as much to recommend it as half of what is on that particular Torchwood page - I'll get in touch with Russell T (though he is not well known for clearing up contentious theories!)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndaisley (talk • contribs) 13:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, not few editors like to add their personal theories into our articles, so it's well possible that the article contains such content. Nevertheless, that's not a reason to add more of such content. Regards  So Why  14:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

usurpation request
Hi there. yes it was me who posted the |usurpation request to usurp the blocked acocunt "عمرو". I didn't actually got what you want me to do, where do you want me to confirm my request?! on the Arabic wikipedia usurpation page, or where exactly?! Please, reply me on my Arabic talk page. Thanks in Advance --XXx Mouri xXx (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The reply on your Arabian Wikipedia talkpage is enough. Thank you :-) Regards  So Why  14:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

hey
hey just to let you know i wasnt spamming or trolling with the rassilon pic I thought it would be a good idea ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand. But you uploaded a version that was a combination of two pictures that are copyrighted without cropping it, making it too large for the infobox and the topic of Rassilon in The End of Time is under the dispute anyway. If we add such an image to the infobox, it should be like the one on Doctor (Doctor Who), i.e. cropped to the same size. But we should await further discussion on the subject before we do so. Regards  So Why  18:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsurp
I see today is the last day to wait for my unsurp request. Until now, the request is neither completed or denied. Is there anything else I should do? --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The day means it's the soonest it will be completed, since with each (non-SUL) request the owner of the target account has 7 days to react to it. After that period, a crat will decide about the request, which may take another few days if they are busy (there are only few crats and the community is quite strict on promoting new ones). Regards  So Why  14:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Dehani Lift Irrigation Scheme
Hi SoWhy. I recently came across the article, Dehani Lift Irrigation Scheme; I get the feeling there is some thing dreadfully wrong with the article but I can't quite put my finger on it. If you could look at it and perhaps take action as necessary, it'd be much appreciated. Thanks,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 11:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * On first glance, I'd say it looks like a pamphlet or presentation about the project rather than a encyclopedia entry (maybe even a copyvio but I cannot find a source). From what I can see, it needs to be rewritten in prose form, with additional references. Sadly, I cannot find any sources on GNews, GBooks or GScholar and I am unsure whether this is a notable subject (this is the only press release I could find at all). I tagged it now to maybe alert others and hopefully the placement in the "needs attention" category will bring someone with more knowledge on such subjects to the article but I cannot share the notion that something is "dreadfully wrong". From what I see, it just needs (a lot of) work. Regards  So Why  15:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Thanks for looking into it! Best,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 21:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem :-)  So Why  21:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Update
I was wondering if you could tell me if you reviewed my edits. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have only had time to do a quick review and it did not turn up anything really negative that would scream "this is wrong!" to me. If you are asking to determine whether you should try RFA again though, I didn't have the time to check it thoroughly enough but based on the comments on your last RFA I, personally, would advice against another RFA anytime soon (not before April or May I'd say). You might want to ask someone else for their opinion on that though. Regards  So Why  19:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm aiming for the next week starting one because I go back to school soon and I don't want to run during school. I know of a few others who are quite encouraging, but I'll definitely ask around, and maybe ask some of the naysayers at my last run their opinions. Thanks though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you were asking me, I'd certainly recommend to hold off longer. This will be your fourth RfA, that number alone will give many people pause and make them look twice (Since 2008, by a rough count, there were only three successful fourth attempts and one successful fifth, versus at least 20 failed fourth+ attempts). You'll want to get this one right, and no matter the circumstances, I'd recommend one year pause between RfA 3 and RfA 4. Remembering your last one from August, I'm the first to agree that you're a different editor today, just from what I've happened to read since then. Nonetheless, with that memory still fresh, I too would look very closely at you, and I can't imagine I'd be the only one. Big disclaimer: I didn't look at your current contribs and don't really intend to at this point. It's also my standard recommendation to wait longer with an RfA, and at least one editor went ahead anyway and passed RfA with flying colors. Amalthea  18:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

 * Thanks for the nomination and the kind words, I will try to live up to it. I have completed the nomination and transcluded the request. Let's see how it goes. Regards  So  Why  14:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you help fix this issue?
Hello. Can you too have a peek here. Thanks and regards. Rehman(+) 11:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did so with this edit. Hope it helps. PS: You should leave a note about it in case they have not watchlisted the page. Regards  So  Why  11:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And sorry if i troubled you. I will leave a message on userpage now. Also thanks for showing the WP:BRD, i really didnt know that. Regards. Rehman(+) 12:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We live and learn, so don't worry. Glad I could help Regards  So  Why  12:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you again. But, "For all of these reasons the new version is just unacceptable" was answer after your note, followed by yet another revert. I havent done anything so far, and will wait for your instructions. Thanks and regards. Rehman(+) 23:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. Unfortunately, the issue is now more than about those icons and I am not knowledgeable on the topic itself. You might want to try further steps of dispute resolution, like asking for help at the related WikiProjects or initiating an request for comments. Regards  So Why  13:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand. I have added a link at WP:3O. Thanks for everything. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 13:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Stubbe – Von Fall zu Fall

 * Wohoo, 25!  So  Why  16:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy new year and all that!
And although it's probably already too late, good luck with the gauntlet.

A different ask, though, would you mind having a look at User:MLauba/Sandbox2 and tell me whether it's understandable? I'm worried that I might be taking too many shortcuts on information I'm familiar with, leaving the article unintelligible for others. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since SoWhy probably has other things on his mind currently, I took the liberty of looking over the article. I found it to be reasonably well-written, but I have a few comments / suggestions. Would you mind me editing in your sandbox? Otherwise, I can wait until you move it, or place my comments elsewhere. I take it you are planning a copy-paste move? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the stalk, and I'd welcome your edits. I'll do a quick histpurge to ensure the article can be moved with it's entirely relevant history, in particular any edits you make. Just give me 10 secs :) MLauba (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I was about to say that there was no need to preserve the history for my edits. I do not mind if you copy-paste it. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, credit where credit is due. I'm a stickler for the BY in CC-BY-SA :) Thanks for the c/e, gonna move and hook it now. MLauba (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

RFA Question
Is there a template similar to the "Afd top" template that can be placed on RFAs? I've usually just copied from an older one, but there has to be an easier way. So is there, or am I just hopeful? Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See this template, this template and this template. -- Thejadefalcon <sup style="color:#03C03C;">Sing your song <sub style="color:#00A550;">The bird's seeds 00:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Although you should not use rfap ;-) Remember that they have to be substituted (e.g. {{subst:rfaf}})! Regards  So Why  09:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll leave the "rfap"ing to the crats. Thanks for the templates! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yu Ram Cha
Thank you for responding to the speedy. Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 14:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. You should expand the text and format the links into proper references though. Regards  So  Why  14:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were smarter than that
I thought you had decided not to run because of the gauntlet RfB had become... oh well, guess you aren't smarter than a fifth grader ;-) Ooops, forgot the real reason why I came here... good luck.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know but then I thought, I want to help and if that's what I have to do to be able to help, so be it. At least it's a good way to get constructive feedback. But thanks! Regards  So  Why  15:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I !voted for you. I hope that mine helps you to pass. Good job and good luck!-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  02:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While RfB (and RfA for that matter) have been unequivocally inane and non-sensical, I applaud your courage. You are one of the few people that I believe would be able to handle the position, so I wish you all the best of luck. Hugs, ··· Katerenka ( 討論 ) 00:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

deleted Katalin H. Horváth
Dear SoWhy,

You have just deleted a page witch was about a hungarian artist student who is doing her thesis about queer art in new media. I am not her I am just helping her in this project and I am kindly asking you to please restore her page witch is about her WORK and not her.

best regards,

Nora Horvath


 * I would like to but unfortunately, we cannot accept just any page that is created for any person. We would have more than 6 billion entries if we did. If you can explain why she is in any way notable in a way satisfying our notability guideline (with reliable sources to confirm it), I'd be happy to restore it. Unfortunately, simply writing a thesis is not enough reason to restore the page. Regards  So Why  20:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind reply!

Katalin H. Horváth exhibited in the following venues:

INVERZ / INVERSE (http://zrevni.blog.hu), Budapest 2009, Trafó House of Contemporary Arts (http://www.trafo.hu/programs/1754) Slow coup d’état (Lassú Puccs), Budapest 2008, MAMU http://mamu.hu/ What’s Up?, Budapest 2008, Kunsthalle http://www.mucsarnok.hu/new_site/index.php?lang=en&t=456 Unsellable, Budapest 2008, Olaf Palme House Enki Odyssee Project 2007 - Wien, Budapest, Belgrade http://www.enki.eu.com/ Ferrari Exhibition 2007, Torino, Budapest “This is Not a Disco” 2006, Pecs and “This is a Disco” 2006, Budapest Contest winner: @®© Poster-ad contest (2006) Workshops: Hungarian Year in Portugal 2007, ENKI ODYSSEE PROJECT 2007 Summer, Visibility Works workshop with Inga Zimprich 2008 ( http://www.think-tank.nl/faculty/thefaculty_.html )

you can track her down through these links.

This wikipage would be part of her thesis witch is not only a thesis but her greatest work so far. Without an existing wikipage her thesis would lose it's point.

Please help her work with restoring the page that we just started working on.

Thank you for your attention!

best regards, Nora Horvath


 * Most of those links do not mention her at all and those which do are not qualifying as reliable sources. I could restore the article with those claims but it would most likely be deleted within a week for not meeting the notability guideline for biographies. You can try to write a draft in your userspace, for example at User:Rr.noar/Katalin Horváth but you should read Your first article first. Also, please remember that you have to write it in English in order for it to be ever published here. Your first article was not. If you want to contribute in Hungarian, you should use the Hungarian Wikipedia instead. Unfortunately, I cannot tell you what guidelines they have when it comes to biographies, those vary from project to project. Regards  So Why  21:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess you did your best. Thanks for your help. n

Some guidance on getting my page properly undeleted
Hello SoWhy,

In November, you deleted my Page that was titled "Vaughan lazar" for reasons of "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.pizzafusion.com"

After reading your "Read Here First" page, it certainly helped me understand the process which actually started with another Editor. I replied back asking for some more info as to why it was chosen and explained that I was the founder of the company that was being cited. I will say that the article that was ultimately about ME was submitted by a person close to me but it wasn't me. It was actually my friend who handles a lot of the PR for my company. I'm assuming that red-flag popped up when the Biography he wrote for our website http://www.pizzafusion.com was almost identical to the work he submitted for me. So the first reason the site was flagged for deletion should be "all clear" since I own the company, correct? But then I see that your "reason" was "A3: Article that has no meaningful, substantive content" that caused the final sword to fall.

My real question to you is simply this... PLEASE help me understand the best way to have a wikipedia article submitted with my biography. I realize, from reading various Wikipedia articles, the best way to have a 3rd party person who is not closely related to you or your company write such an article. I believe the content to be extremely relevant for a Wikipedia submission and would really appreciate your insight and instructions. I have a real challenge understanding all the talk pages and tags etc so I am a bit slow to pick the Wiki world up quickly.

I sincerely appreciate your help in this matter. --Vaughanz (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Vaughan


 * First of all, all content submitted to Wikipedia needs to be licensed into the GNU Free Documentation License and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 licenses. Owning the text is not enough (see donating copyright material for details).
 * Then, per our conflict-of-interest guideline you really shouldn't write an article about yourself nor your company. There is virtually no way you can write it from a neutral point of view, which is very important for all our articles. If you think you can do so, you should use the article wizard which will guide you through creation but select the "Userspace draft" option in the end to work on it in your userspace. So you made a userspace draft explains what to do next, including Requests for feedback which allows you to request feedback on the page before publishing it. If you need further help, please ask. The the help desk can help you as well. Regards  So Why  21:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010
<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) 09:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please check the Skiff, LLC talk page
I left you a note. Thanks, Chaim (Chaas (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Responded on → Talk:Skiff (company). Regards  So Why  22:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Request for Bureaucratship
I am sorry to inform you that I have closed your RfB as unsuccessful. I do not think that the comments made in response to your request demonstrate a sufficient level of community support for promotion. I hope that you will not be too disheartened by the result and will continue to be actively involved in the English Wikipedia community. Do bear in mind the considerable confidence voiced in support of your request and give thought to the comments that were made by those opposing, especially if you are thinking of making another request in future (in which case remeber that a number of bureaucrats were unsuccessful on their first request for the extra tools). I wish you all the best, <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if the community does not want my help, it's their choice. Regards  So  Why  15:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear. There were next to no reasonable objections to your ability as a bureaucrat. The judgement of these issues has gotten out of hand particularly after JC's second fail. Polargeo (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Pity you were made the fall guy for NEWT mate. I think you'd have been great for the role. Ausser Spesen nix gewesen :( MLauba (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your work, and best of luck time around! - Dank (push to talk) 16:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This RfB really annoyed me, please do not give up you will someday make a great crat! RP459 (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well, I will not lose any sleep over failing that request, I don't cry over losing a new "hat" or not getting more "powers". In my little world, which is probably very idealistic, I merely offered to help in three more areas of the project and the community decided that they do not want my help. Someone else might be annoyed that their RFX evolved into a off-topic discussion on the merits of a good-faith project gone bad or discussion about the actions of others, but not me. As wrote on the RFB: It's only a website, nothing more. But I knew that before. Thanks for your kind words though, I really appreciate them. And MLauba: Es ist nie ein Fehler, die Möglichkeit, Feedback zu bekommen, zu ergreifen. Regards  So Why  16:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome! ;) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good luck next time! Hobit (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The timing in relation to NEWT was unfortunate, but time will probably heal most wounds. I wish you better luck if you try again in the future. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

du bist ein Idiot

 * But if you are not crazy, how can you work on this project? Regards  So  Why  21:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He isn't, he's retired, remember? :D MLauba (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And don't you damn well forget it!--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't dare. MLauba (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He's semi-retired at most.  So  Why  13:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, no! I saw this moments too late! Useight (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't blame me! ...wouldn't you like to be on WP:200 twice? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to be on it once. I only managed WP:100 so far :-( Regards  So Why  18:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, just run again in six months and assuming you get 100 then as well, add it up and there you have it. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted contribs
A while back, I noticed here that I had 3 deleted contribs, and now I have 19! Wow, where'd those come from? Anyway, since you're an admin, do you have any sort of tools that would allow you to see what those were? Furthermore, can you clarify exactly what a deleted contrib is? - Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 08:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC) - Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 15:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC) - Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 19:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Garrett, to save you a wait I hope you don't mind if I answer for SoWhy, :-) Yes, admins can see an editor's deleted contributions.  Deleted contributions come mainly from edits made to pages that are subsequently deleted.  Editors who do a lot of new page patrolling usually have a high deleted contributions count.
 * In your case, your deleted contributions mostly come from the edits you made to subpages in your userspace. You made several edits to User:Garrettw87/Projects, for example.
 * Hope that answers your question, :-)  Mae din \talk 11:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah it does, thanks! I didn't think of my deleted userpages – it made me think that individual edits of mine were removed from the database, or something like that. I know, it doesn't make sense, but that's all I could come up with.
 * That's okay, it's pretty much the same reaction I had when I first came across them about a year ago, :) My first thought was, " what have I done wrong?"  The reality is rather less exciting^^   Mae din \talk 15:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "My first thought was, " what have I done wrong?" The reality is rather less exciting^^" – same and same.

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

VulgarGrad page deleted: not a notable band?
Hi

This band from Melbourne is notable. http://www.myspace.com/vulgargrad

They play plenty of gigs.

Please undelete their page.

Many thanks, Ash the AudioMonkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.225.102 (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Unfortunately, notability may not be used the same way on Wikipedia. Do you have any reliable sources that establish or at least indicate that the band meets our notability guideline for musical groups? Regards  So Why  13:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010
<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) 15:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for taking the time to comment in regards to the ANI.

Have a great week!

I am still recovering from our office Christmas party this afternoon. ;-) Too many "liquids" for my own good. Ikip (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010
<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) 04:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much
Thank you so much for your advice concerning my usurpation request. I'll try it again following the way you suggest. Kintaro-san (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. If you do it that way, you will almost certainly get the account here without any problems. If you need further help, feel free to ask. Regards  So Why  21:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done! Thank you soooo much! you're being soooo nice to me! ¡Olé! Kintaro-san (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. I left another note at the request. You can try to merge your other accounts (like the one on Commons which I guess is you as well) to your new unified login. Use this tool to see which accounts where attached to the account and which are not part of your unified login. In order to be logged into all projects, you should try to attach those accounts as well (using Special:MergeAccount on those wikis) and usurp those which were not created by you. Regards  So Why  22:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your kindness, I indeed own the Commons Kintaro account... but my password is different on it... how can I merge it to my other unified-login accounts? The only thing I need is merging my five acccounts in a single one (four accounts from four different wikis plus my Commons account). And that's all since I don't speak more than four languages, so I'll not usurp more accounts than the english one (User:Kintaro). Thank you again! I'll be waiting while you clerks proceed my requests. By the way, how can I change my Commons account password? I think this way I could merge it to my Spanish-French-Catalan accounts... or not? Kintaro-san (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am no expert, since I had no problem with my own SUL account but according to m:Help:Unified login, you need to visit Special:MergeAccount on Commons and can attach the account from that page. On a side note, your request is processed as far as we clerks can do it. The renaming itself can only be done by a crat, a small group that I do not belong to, so it might take a bit. Regards  So Why  22:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion there's no need to rename anything, only to merge both my English Wiki and Commons accounts to my three already merged accounts (es, fr and ca). I'll take a peek at your new links concerning my new requests... I must seem so demanding... and you're being so kind and helpful... I thank you sincerely. Kintaro (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done! Finished!! All my projects, all my accounts (the Commons account and the four wikis accounts) are now merged in a unified login, with the same password. Thank you, SoWhy, you were so nice to me, I couldn't have obtained it without your help. Good luck, my friend, and don't hesitate to request my help for anything where I could be useful to you. Santé et bonne année! Kintaro (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again, SoWhy, I just wanted to ask you about how to merge my autocreated accounts on "Wikispecies" and "Meta-Wiki" (in order to check it I put the link you gave me on my front user page). "See" you soon, and thank you so much for your helpful help. Kintaro (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the software does not allow accounts to be merged, so you have two choices: You can either continue using the autocreated accounts on those wikis and include a link to your previous username there on the respective userpages or you can go to Meta:Changing username (on meta) and Wikispecies:Changing username (on species) and request to usurp the autoconfirmed account with the previous accounts (the details vary but you probably need to provide a confirmation link (as you did here) from your home wiki (es-wiki) which confirms that account XXX on meta/species is you and you want to be renamed in order to have that account in the SUL). If you made only few edits on your previous account, the first option is probably easier. Regards  So Why  13:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, and sorry for answering so late. I guess I didn't express myself properly, what I want is to merge them, since they are still properly created with the right username: "Kintaro" (no need to change their name then). What I'm trying to do is "attach" them to my other accounts. This way we should see merged by user besides them. I hope I was clear, but if I wasn't don't worry, it's not so important. I'll be absent for several days, sorry if I'm too long again answering your next message. Take care! Kintaro (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the SUL tool, there wasn't a user called "Kintaro" on either meta or species when you unified your account and as such, a new account was created automatically on login. It's most likely that your previous accounts on those wikis were not called "Kintaro" but something else. So the question is: Did you have an account there before 14 January 2010? Regards  So Why  14:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

So the question is: Did you have an account there before 14 January 2010? No, of course not. Is then useless to "attach" them as I deed for my other accounts? Regards. Kintaro (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's simply not required. Those accounts were autocreated using your unified login when you first visit those projects. The SUL will create an account on any sister project you visit from now on that will be automatically attached to your global account. There is nothing to merge. "Merged by user" just means that those accounts existed before 14 January 2010 and were semi-automatically merged/attached when you created the global account. Other than that, "merged by user" and "autocreated" in the SUL tool are the same. Regards  So Why  21:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you again, and sorry for the so long discussion, I'm ashamed of having originated a so long thread, so I'll try to don't disturb you anymore. I take account of the fact you were the first on suggesting a solution for my problem. Once more: thank you. Kintaro (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'm always happy to help. :-) Regards  So Why  22:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP
Do you know when it was added to the watchlist notice? I'd like to make it a week after than. -- B figura  (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * N/m, found it. It was 22:58, January 23, 2010. -- B figura  (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, another day after that would not hurt and 31 January 2010 23:59 UTC is a time/date that is more easier to remember ("end of the month"). Regards  So Why  21:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Doh, I made the change before I read this. I'm fine with another day though. -- B figura (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. As you indicated to be okay with it, I changed it to 31 Jan now. Regards  So Why  21:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

AFD closer
User:Mr.Z-man's closeAFD script seems to have stopped working on my system. Is it still working for you? Ged UK  20:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's working okay for me at the moment - though I've definitely had problems in the past with it stopping working after unexpectedly conflicting with other scripts. May be worth disabling others and seeing if it starts working again for you. ~ mazca  talk 21:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I will do, just I haven't changed anything else, so I can't work it out. Anyway, i'll give it a try. Ged  UK  21:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could also be a cache problem with the browser. Have you tried a cache-skipping reload (CTRL+SHIFT+R in Firefox for example)? Did you activate any gadgets? Regards  So Why  22:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, tried that. What sort of gadgets? I've tried it on firefox and chrome on this ubuntu system. I'll try it on my mac tomorrow. Ged  UK  22:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, now it works on Chrome, but not ff. Oh well. Ged  UK  23:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

rename template
Hi, I have restored Template:Rename which you speedy deleted, with an explanation on the talk page. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA prospects
Since you voted neutral on my last RfA I have tried to make some progress in addressing the issues raised. Whilst I realise it is still too early to try for a second RfA I would appreciate some advice on my progress and some direction. I have tried to address the issue of having limited experience in CSD. Polargeo (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's too soon since your RFA in order for me to be able to give you a useful analysis. I think you should not think about it for a while but get on with editing and then ask again in 2-3 months of normal editing. Currently it's most likely that your editing was influenced by "extra-awareness" of the issues mentioned in your RFA and may not reflect on your real experience. Regards  So Why  19:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks SoWhy, I asked you because I respect you as an experienced user who I have had dealings with. I have many edits since my RfA, in fact 25 % of my total edits have been since my RfA. I am fully aware that it is too soon for another RfA I was just looking for some guidance. I don't like the thought of admin coaching but I would appreciate some direction. I understand if you don't reply because we all have limited time to give to wikipedia. Also I'm sorry your RfB did not pass. That was an absolute joke, same with Julian's. Unfortunately both RfA and RfB are a joke. I think people are too frequently getting through because they don't upset anyone rather than for the more valid reason that they are experienced reliable editors who won't abuse the tools. Whilst those experienced editors who won't abuse the tools are damned if they ever rock the boat! Polargeo (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy to hear this. And I noticed that you made a lot of edits this month alone. The point is that you did them with your failed RFA in mind, thus analyzing them will probably not yield an objective result. A statistician would probably say that the sample size is too small for a valid analysis. As a general advice, you should probably try to address the main concerns of your RFA: The concern over your limited experience can only be rectified by some months of active, clueful editing. Concerns over temperament were the second main reason and you can address this by demonstrating calmness and civility in your comments. Remember to preview all comments, especially when participating in a heated discussion and not to submit any comment that you are not sure that it will be beneficial. If in doubt, don't add it. In XFDs, don't reply to everyone having a different opinion. Generally, don't add comments that can be seen as badgering. Last but not least: deletion. Again, you can only rectify those concerns by investing a lot of effort and time in this area. Patrol new pages and tag for speedy deletion where appropriate. If you haven't, read essays about it (like WP:FIELD, WP:WIHSD, WP:10CSD etc.) before. Also, participate in AFDs but again, read about reasons and alternatives for deletion if you haven't. Again, I know this is only a general comment that does not analyze your editing but as I said above, I don't feel that any analysis at this point can lead to a viable result. Maybe in 2-3 months time. Hope it helps anyway. Regards  So  Why  13:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion and later rewriting my invitation
An alternate account deleted my invitation on your talk page. Some editors disagreed about these deletions. I actually appreciate this deletion because I completely rewrote the template. I hope to hear your opinion on this matter here. Ikip 20:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Sowhy
Can you redirect sowhy to your page, thanks? Ikip 17:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Why?  So Why  17:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Because editors like me type user:sowhy first, then have to retype with cap. Thanks for reading this. Ikip 03:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

- Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 08:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or you could just click the link that's already there to get to User:SoWhy. The template that exists there is a better explanation for the account than a mere redirect.
 * Agree. If I turned it into a redirect, it looked as if the account was either a previous account that has been renamed or an alternate account I use for editing. The doppelganger-template is necessary to make it crystal clear that this account does not edit and will not do so. Sorry if it causes more work when trying to find this page. Regards  So Why  13:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Valentine's Day soundtrack
Hmm, a track list on its own doesn't really seem like context to me, but I guess that's why I'm not an admin. Albums and especially soundtracks usually have some kind of information about the film etc. that they are taken from but this one has nothing but a list of song names. -- Big  Dom  19:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That is true but A1 does not require much context. If you can figure out what the article is about, it fails A1, since then you can easily fix it instead. A1 is meant to remove those pages where another editor (like you and me) stumbling upon the page has no idea what to do with the content on it. In this case, it was clear that a new user attempted to introduce an article about the OST for Valentine's Day (film) but did not know how such an article should look like. I have now added the necessary markup and structure. Regards  So Why  19:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Dawsholm (speedy deletion request)
Sorry about that. I did check "what links here" and the weird thing is that it came up saying nothing linked to that page. Otherwise, I'd never have put a speedy deletion request on it. -- DMS (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. Although you might want to remember that we have strict speedy reasons, only cross-namespace and recently created, implausible redirects can be speedy deleted. This one was neither, so WP:RFD should have been used anyway. But in this case the redirect makes sense to have. And remember, redirects are cheap Regards  So  Why  13:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010
<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) 22:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Strange goings on with Drunvalo article
I see you blocked User_talk:Tryfl2655 for vandalism of the Drunvalo Melchizedek article (amongst others). I just wanted to point out that the person who set that account up was responsible for similar vandalism in 2007 using the account User_talk:Terry_Welch. It's a long story but if you are curious you could look at my web page Perfect Science - Perfect Scam?. Ianji (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Macedonian article (Montenegrins)
Hi! What I did is applied that which is at the article Macedonian over at this. Is there a problem there? --Drivast (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Articles about certain similar subjects do not have to follow the same standard of naming. Our policy at WP:PRECISION says that we should always use the least disambiguated article title possible, i.e. only be as specific in the title as needed to distinguish the article from others. The difference here is that Macedonian can have several meanings (name of the language, part of Greece etc.) but there is only one subject that should be called Montenegrins (the others either being titled Montenegro or Montenegrin), so there is no need to have "(ethnic group)" in the title. Regards  So Why  23:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Undo vs revert
I was reading your opinion that "undo" is preferable when the edit was made in good faith. Twinkle has a "Rollback AGF" option which I use when it appears that a completely unhelpful edit doesn't seem malicious. Do you recommend the slightly longer option of undoing the edit in those cases, or were your comments aimed at Huggle use in particular?--otherlleft 20:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My comments were actually aimed at rollback, i.e. reverts that happen without further comment. Both Twinkle's AGF rollback and Huggle's custom revert option are as preferable as undo is when not using Twinkle and Huggle. My comment in this particular case was because Madhero88 used a standard Huggle revert message that was simply incorrect. In general, any revert of a good-faith edit should be accompanied by an edit summary explaining the revert. Which technical tool you use for that purpose is irrelevant, i.e. it does not have to be undo. Regards  So Why  20:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification!--otherlleft 20:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ein dickes Dankeschön!

 * 🇩🇪 This section uses German language. It's not meant to exclude other readers of my talk page. If you are really interested, Google Translate can help you understand it. ;-)

Servus, von Herzen ein großes Dankeschön fürs Verdienst bei der Nominierung des Robert Scholl Artikels bei DYK. Hoffentlich schaffen wir es bis auf die Main Page! Wenn du Interesse an noch einem Projekt hast, habe ich versucht Christian Wilberg auszubauen. Hauptproblem dabei sind meine Quellen, und teilweise mein Englisch. Ich wohne zu lange in Deutschland um noch vernünftiges Englisch zu können... Ein kritisches Auge auf den Beitrag wäre geschätzt! Danke für die Mitarbeit und beste Wiki-Grüße. Jared Preston (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Kein Problem. Nachdem du nix weiter gemacht hattest, hab ich mir gedacht, ich baus mal aus, wenn ich eh paar Minuten Zeit hab. Ist ja schon bewilligt auf T:TDYK, sollte innerhalb von einer Woche dort landen. Hab dich zu den Credits hinzugefügt übrigens :-)
 * Was Christian Wilberg angeht, so kann ichs mir mal anschauen. Ich fürchte aber das mein English auch nicht perfekt ist. ;-) Gruß  So Why  21:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Joa, bis Samstag hatte ich ihn auch vergessen! Das war Anfang Dezember – hoffentlich hattest du schöne Weihnachten! Und schon isses Februar... Hast du Semesterferien? Jared Preston (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Passiert halt, kann man ja auch nix machen^^ Semesterferien, was ist das? Ich studier Jura, ich hab sowas nicht. Meine Veranstaltungen halten sich nicht an solche Konventionen, ohne meine Freundin, wüsste ich nichtmal, wann die sind xD
 * Was Christian Wilberg angeht, ich hab mal ein wenig umformuliert Hoffe nicht zu schlimm. Blöd halt wegen Sources, findet man online wohl kaum welche, da müsste man wirklich in ne Bib gehen oder so ;-) Gruß  So  Why  21:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Article: Future Design
Hi I've got a question about the deletion of the article Future by design, I can't seem to find any elaborate reason for the deletion of this article only this:

12:07, 1 April 2009 SoWhy (talk | contribs) deleted "Future by Design" ‎ (G12: Blatant copyright infringement of http://art.commongate.com/post/Future_by_Design/)

so the definition of G12 and the definition of the blatant copyright agreement are very informational indeed but still holds no case for the deletion of such an article I would like to see the actual accusing facts about the deletion of this article and not a definition of law that is nothing more than a statement of itself. by example a cop comes to my door and says to me you are going to jail because the law states you cannot steal apples and there I go off to jail, later 'm wondering... what apples?! I have almost no education whatsoever so it's quite obvious who has the power in this matter but still.

with regards and eagerly awaiting your answer, XM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.71.170 (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, that was almost a year ago... Well, as far as I can see, it's fairly easy: The creator of the article copied the text 1:1 from the website I mentioned in my deletion summary (it was exactly the same text). Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, so all text additions need to be released under the GFDL and the Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 license and the website in question did not do so but retained copyright explicitly. Since it violates the author's rights, I cannot restore the page for you to review it but I'm sure any other admin would be happy to confirm that this was the case with this article. Regards  So Why  13:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
<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) 03:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

renaming username
Is anybody going to rename username for me? I did everything what I was asked to do. Here I placed the request to usurpate unused User:Snooker account, then you asked to create unified account for my existing wiki project account that has Snooker username. I did so. When can I expect the thing moving forward.Tomreves (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing so. Please be patient, a crat will be along soon to take care of it. Unfortunately, since our community does not want to entrust this position to many users, we only have a handful of active crats to handle such requests and thus it might take up to a week. But don't worry, since you did everything needed, it should be done sooner or later. You can edit as "Tomreves" in the meantime here. The rename will reassign your edits under this name to "Snooker" once performed. Regards  So Why  09:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010
<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) 13:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A note of thanks !!
Thank you so much for helping me !! And I like everything I read on your 'About Me' page. If it's ok, maybe I will come back here if I need your help again. Thanks !! CoderCat (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are most welcome. Feel free to ask me at any time if you have more questions. Remember also to check the FAQ if you have questions, many things have already been asked and answered and you will not have to wait for me to reply then. Regards  So  Why  20:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: WP:CHU/U
Oops. Thanks for the headsup there - was indeed a mistake :P Thanks again,  GARDEN  13:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010
<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) 12:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

RFA
Would you be willing to evaluate me to see if I am ready to run? Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm kind of busy these days but I will try to. It might take a few days before I can do it though. If any talk page stalking admin reads this, I'd appreciate you helping me ;-) Regards  So Why  21:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's okay, I'll go ask Xeno for now. I 'm sure that whatever it is, it's more important than what I'm asking for. If any talk page stalkers read this, feel free to evaluate me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

SUL request question
Hi! I made a request for partial usurpation at the English wikipedia, because I did not have an account already at the English Wikipedia, but I have already unified my global account. The instructions on that SUL page say that in this case "...you do not need to create one. You may place your request without logging in. (However, if you are concerned about your privacy, you may create an account like "<Your username> (SUL)"; it is not required, though.)" I followed the instructions an created an account "Antilope (SUL)", and made the request using it. However, now it seems that you think I didn't follow the instructions, and you have fixed and changed the request to a different category. So, did I make my request incorrectly after all? Do you think the request can be fulfilled? Antilope (SUL) (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the only change I made was to include the account you created. Usually, you can make the request as an IP editor and don't have to create an account here. With my change, your edits as "Antilope (SUL)", like here, will be re-attributed to "Antilope" after the rename is done. Don't worry, apart from that there should not be a problem although it might take a few days to be handled. Regards  So Why  13:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Community de-adminship
You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010
<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) 03:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

List of rulers of Kuba
I would like to suggest that you revert your speedy deletion and out-of-process closure of the AFD on this article. The speedy was not correct. It is not a copyright violation. Any non-subjective complete list in obvious order is going to end up with the same details. You could try to speedy delete the List of U.S. presidents because Britannica had the same names in the same order with the same dates but I think we know how that would end. The AFD was based on the article having no sources - but one was quickly found (which the original poster should have tried before listing the AFD in my opinion). The AFD should be allowed to finish based on the strength of the sources. Rmhermen (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The deletion was not done because the facts where the same. It was done because the text was almost exactly the same. You are correct, lists of rulers, like many other, will always be similar. Yet, if they are exactly the same in many parts, then it's still a violation of copyright and thus falls under G12. You are welcome to recreate the article using your own text and style but there is no reason to restore that list or to reopen the AFD. If you disagree, WP:DRV is the way to go but since a speedy deletion based on G12 does not forbid you to recreate it, I really wouldn't see the point in doing so. Regards  So Why  00:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (Disclosure: I tagged the Kuba list.) G12-taggings for a few similar lists have been declined, see discussions here and here. It would be good if this could be discussed at a central place, and if the result of the discussion could be documented in the relevant policies. List of printed lines in the "Origin of Species" would be a complete list in obvious order but certainly not allowed. To present research in list form cannot be leading to non-applicability of copyright law. --Pgallert (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically, the List of printed lines in the "Origin of Species" would be allowed under copyright as the original work is long out of copyright protection. It would be disallowed for other reasons, though (because WIkipedia doesn't publish complete works, something better suited to Wikisource). As for the Kuba list, if the information in the list is simply statistical, a regurgitation of facts, it can not be protected under copyright. Only if the list contains some sort of original work eligible for copyright would there be an issue, but simply listing the facts would not violate any copyright. If the list was copied from some other place, it would be required to be sourced, though, in order to avoid issues of plagiarism. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

C&C 4 edit
Hi there :)

I just wanted to let you know that I've resubmitted some changes to the C&C 4 page and updated it a bit to hopefully alleviate any concerns.

I feel that with the rollout of these new DRM schemes it is important to include such information in wikipedia pages.

However I will admit that perhaps the intro is not the best place for this information. If you're still unhappy with the recent changes I'd be happy to add a new section specifically for the DRM controversy.

Cheers :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuchinni one (talk • contribs) 14:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia welcomes all kind of contributions. However, they need to be focused on the topic itself. While I am sympathetic to such concerns - I myself have refused to buy many games because of DRM - your edits are not about the DRM that was included with C&C4. That Ubisoft has included a similar DRM in their games which has lead to criticism is relevant to Assassin's Creed II or Silent Hunter V but since it's not the same company that made C&C4 and since none of your sources talk about C&C4, it has no place in that article. I recommend you remove them again. Regards  So Why  14:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me. I understand where you're coming from and appreciate the input.  I've added a link from PCWorld that directly speaks to EA's C&C 4 DRM.  This should hopefully meet the wikipedia standards :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuchinni one (talk • contribs) 23:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-emptive indefinite semi-protection of John Laws
Hello,

I would like to draw your attention to a case of pre-emptive indefinite semi-protection that I find unjustified.

The protecting admin has been challenged about it. Only after the issue was reported to WP:RUP did the admin come up with something resembling an explanation, which was accepted by the investigating admin. The justification was in my opinion extremely flimsly: "there has been in the last varying degrees of speculation in tabloid press and elsewhere".

As you may remember, pre-emptive semi-protections were recently rejected (scroll down) due to an evident lack of consensus. Not only that, but this justification falls even short of that proposal, since it's not clear to me how unreferenced "speculation in tabloid press and elsewhere" is a "high-profile event that has a history of drawing vandalism".

I would appreciate your views on the matter on the protecting admin's talk page. Thank you. 114.148.236.155 (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that pre-emptive protection is incorrect and not allowed by consensus but I will not be canvassed to complain to another admin about it. If you wish a review of any admin's actions, WP:AN is the place to request it. Regards  So Why  18:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I was not aware that WP:CANVASSing was frowned upon. Thank you for informing me.
 * I have followed your suggestion and opened a discussion at WP:AN. 123.225.192.66 (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010
<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) 22:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI
You recently participated in a discussion here. This issue has been raised again here, where you may wish to comment. Best regards, – xeno talk  15:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Narayanpet
I came across a recent IP edit on the page of Narayanpet which I just can't work out. It was under a new title called 'Reason for backwardness', which for a start is rather odd. Anyway the content seems to be copied but is poorly written, and in different perspectives. I left a message on the editors talk page but he is yet to reply. What do you suggest? Thanks,  DotComCairney  13:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a soapbox text where someone wrote down their thoughts about this town but is not encyclopedic. I removed it as WP:OR. Regards  So Why  20:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Credo Reference offer
I don't know what sources you have to hand but you might find this offer useful: AFAIK some of these materials aren't typically included in European library subscriptions. Grüß - Pointillist (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification, I appreciate it. Unfortunately, it seems that my desire to be asleep at Midnight, in order to be able to wake at 6:00 to go to work, has interfered with my chances to participate in that offer :-/ Regards  So Why  07:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! and a silly question
Good morning! I'm here bright and early on a Sunday to pick your brains concerning a rather trivial matter. You see how I have a div container with quotes in on my talk page? Well, all is fine and dandy except that some of the quotes are too big for the box. Do you know how to make the box grow? I tried a few things and peeked around on the interweb, but none of that seemed to work. I suppose an added difficulty is that I only want the box to grow if it needs to go beyond the size it is now; if the quote is only one line, for example, I don't want it to shrink accordingly. Here's the template page: User:Maedin/Q template

Of course, it's cool if it can't be done, I'll just remove the long quotes! Which reminds me, in my searching around on how to do this, I saw that the quotes should be numbered, which I've faithfully done here. Anything wrong with skipping some numbers? Will I break it? My patience doesn't extend to removing quote number 54 and then renumbering all of the subsequent ones.

You must be busy; your contributions have s l o w e d d o w n.  :(  Hope things are okay.  I agree about Bordo, by the way, but you have to admit that English is pretty funky like that, too.  Besides, my plan is for Strasbourg, and that's very nearly German!   Mae din \talk 09:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sneaky hint - change 'height' to 'min-height'. :) A le_Jrb <sup style="color:blue;">talk  10:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Perfect!! Thank you!  All that time and it was something so *simple*.  :D   Mae din \talk 11:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your concern btw, yeah, I'm currently a bit busy IRL but I would have been more than happy to help you - it's just that I am usually still in bed at 10:35 on a Sunday ; but I see my faithful talk page stalker already handled it perfectly, so thanks Alex :-) Regards  So Why  11:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sneaky amendment – if you skip numbers, it might still roll that number, but won't display anything then as long as you have no #default case defined. But it won't really break. And the last couple of quotes can't currently be displayed at all since you only draw 103 random numbers. Amalthea  16:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahh, thanks! I'd forgotten about that 103.  I won't bother to attempt a default case, as I've realised that I wouldn't need to renumber: I can just move a quote from the bottom to the new empty position higher up the queue.  D'oh Julie!  At least I sussed that eventually.  Thank you, all three of you, :)   Mae din \talk 17:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You might still want to define a default case anyway, that way you can add and remove quotes without having the move them around every time. :-) Regards  So Why  17:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh, "suss out" ... never heard that before. I need to talk to more Brits. :) Thanks, Amalthea  17:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol. Brits are teh awesome. A le_Jrb <sup style="color:blue;">talk  17:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you guys enjoyed that, . The rest of the peculiarly British vocabulary isn't fit for polite conversation, really, it mostly consists of euphemisms for . . . stuff, ;)   Mae din \talk 21:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I always loved the way Brits speak (hence I love Doctor Who, Torchwood, Coupling, etc.) but that's of course another good reason to do so Regards  So  Why  22:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehe, you're quite right,   Mae din \talk 22:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Music Women
Hi, SoWhy. Would you take a look at Music Women and see if it's a hoax? (I'm asking you since this is a German topic, and I do not know if these are reliable sources.) Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There might be some reliable sources in there but none of them talk about any musical, they usually use "Musikfrau" as "musical woman" and I cannot find any hits for a musical or its alleged writer in any Google search (News, Books, Scholar), so I would agree that it's most likely a hoax. I PRODded it as such. Regards  So Why  10:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking a look at this article and prodding it. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010
<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) 19:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010
<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) 19:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Eleventh Hour
Wikipedia must be kept accurate at all times, I posted a reliable source regarding The Eleventh Hout airing on ITV1 therefore my decision to edit that to the article displaying that info still stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.133.67 (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You will notice that Digital Spy has fixed their news item by now (after I contacted them). Even usually reliable sources can sometimes report incorrect information and if we have a number of sources conflicting with a single, usually reliable source, Wikipedia can and should not replace those sources without good reason, especially not if there is no indication whatsoever that the BBC decided to air their own productions on ITV1. Regards  So Why  19:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2010 April 4
Would you delete the articles listed at Deletion review/Log/2010 April 4? I don't understand why CAT:CSD doesn't appear on those pages even though they are tagged with db-empty. Do you know why? Cunard (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably because db-empty is not a redirect like other db-xxx templates but a special template that calls either db-a3 or db-c1 depending on namespace but seems to fail to pass the category along. Unfortunately, I lack the template coding skills to fix it myself. I left a message who created the template that way and will take care of those articles listed above. Regards  So  Why  08:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look at this. I have a hunch that this has something to do with xeno's edits on 9 March 2010 but don't know enough about templates and documentation to recognize if his edits removed CAT:CSD from the template. BTW, nice save of Murder at the Cannes Film Festival. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is certainly the reason, since Xeno turned it from a redirect to a template that calls another template based on namespace. Let's hope he can fix it :-) Oh, and thanks :-) Regards  So Why  08:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * SoWhy, would you do a favor for me? My talk page is getting long, and it needs to be archived. Move User talk:Cunard to User talk:Cunard/Archive 5. Then add indefinite semi-protection and indefinite full move protection to User talk:Cunard/Archive 5. Restore indefinite full move protection to User talk:Cunard. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. All done :-) Regards  So Why  08:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for archiving the page. As I said User talk:Cunard/Archive 5, "I like having the admins act as my servants. Ordering them around and making them clean up the mess I create is much more satisfying than doing the work myself." ;) Cunard (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So that's the reason you always declined running for adminship. Dammit and I helped you with that. I should have declined to force you to run to do it yourself ;-) Regards  So Why  09:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Multirow begin
Template:Multirow begin has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 14:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLPDEL
Your assistance with editing WP:BLPDEL as you suggested on WT:CSD would be appreciated. The section is currently entitled "summary deletion" and is being pushed as some grant of authority for out of process, unilateral discretion, BLP deletions. It's definitely not talking about AfD or any existing deletion processes right now. Gigs (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll try to take a look but I fear that I might be a bit busy the next two days preparing for my vacation. Is there anything specific I can help with? Regards  So Why  08:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a can of worms for sure, but I suspect changing that section to make it clear it doesn't grant any special out-of-process summary deletion authority is going to meet with heavy resistance, since there's a few editors that strongly believe it should/does. Gigs (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who, talk pages and slow edit wars...
Just wondering... But since there is a discussion as to why an exception to standard British nomenclature exists in the article, is there a reason you just added to the slow moving edit war instead of chiming in and trying to hash it out on the talk page?

- J Greb (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you review my edit, it was only a revert of a IP edit, not a change to the previous state of the article and that was done while reverting a mistake they introduced. I had not noticed that there was any discussion on that nomenclature, so I did not edit with any intention on taking any side in any edit war. Regards  So Why  19:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are, of course, welcome to contribute to the ongoing discussion on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010
<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) 03:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Judyta Papp article - creation protection status
Article about Judyta Papp (her biography) was sourced from her website: judytapapp_dot_com so there were a problem with copyright infringement. I want to finilize creation of her biography, because Judyta is a famous polish photographer, her photos are in polish wikipedia on articles: Marek_Safjan, Andrzej_Wajda, Gustaw_Holoublek, Władysław_Bartoszewski. I have all information about Judyta Papp, because she sent me that personally. Please help me to finish that article, i have that one rewrited from her CV. (Kjarocka (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC))


 * Do you have any reliable sources about this person, i.e. not information you got from the subject herself but rather sources that are independent of the subject and can serve to establish that she meets the notability guideline? Otherwise, any new article about her will surely be deleted sooner or later and thus it'd be a waste of time to write one. Regards  Yhw Os  13:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010
<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) 01:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010
<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) 12:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Doctor Who
You might want to consider updating this; the point about the infobox image is no longer applicable. Regards, --Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reminding me. Next time, feel free to change it yourself :-) Regards  So Why  22:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do!:)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010
<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) 13:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Brian True
What notable band? A blue linked band doesn't mean it is notable (otherwise this article being a blue link would mean it is notable), as alluded to on the article's talk page. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If the band the individual belongs to fails A7, the benefit of doubt should be given to all its members as well to allow further community interaction. A7 should only handle those cases where there is no indication at all that the subject in question might meet the criteria for inclusion. In this case, PROD can handle the article just fine, although I would have simply added it to the AFD for the band. Regards  So Why  07:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But think that through for a moment. If I want to get my crap on Wikipedia, all I have to do at first is to write the articles about my crappy garage band, all of my members, and some former garage band I was a part of all at once, and magic, no worries about a speedy deletion (which this is what looks like happened in this instance). And since many people don't want to worry about dealing with the crap that can go on at AFD, maybe the article sticks around for awhile (I think we've both been around long enough to know we have a crap load of articles that don't belong that can stick around for years). Of course, then other people start thinking they should have their garage band, and thus the cycle continues (which is why OTHERSTUFFEXISTS even exists, because that argument always comes up). Of course we could take them all to AFD, and they would all fail and be deleted, but we could save lots of time and effort by a speedy. Which is exactly the reason why we have CSD. The "belongs to a notable band" was never meant to be "hey the band they say they are in is a blue link" is was meant as "hey they belong to an actual notable band real people have heard of." Go with what you like, but to me "The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible." means if their claim to fame is a non-notable band, then that claim of significance is not credible. It would be the same for someone who's claim to fame is founding a political party that also is not notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This wouldn't work, mainly because most articles about "crappy garage bands" themselves fail criterion A7, and will be speedy deleted - and the band members will follow. Being member of a band whose article credibly indicates why it is important or significant, on the other hand, should count as a claim to importance or significance.  (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * First, OK, then how come that didn't happen in this case (instead there is a PROD and a couple AFDs I believe)? Second, the greater point I was hoping to get across was concerning the edit summary declining the speedy: "Decline speedy - Being or having been member of a notable band indicates importance/significance (CSDH)" Now, that is true (concerning a reason to decline being part of a notable band), but here that was/is not the case (no notable band), thus the decline on that basis was in error (decline for another reason, but that cannot be the reason here as no notable band existed in that case, only a blue link). Thus my mention that blue links do not necessarily mean notable. Or more pointedly, investigate whether or not a band might actually be notable if you want to insist they are, don't just go by blue links. Or: blue links do not mean notable, they just mean there is an article. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I grant you that it's possibly confusing in cases like this one. I have (hopefully) clarified it with this edit to my CSDHelper's configuration. Regards  So Why  11:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Storms
A full protection? Why? I can see no evidence of vandalism in the history. And I asked for semiprotection many days ago, which was not acted on.

It's an unfolding event, and should be editable by established users. If they are edit-warring, deal with them in the usual way. Tony  (talk)  03:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you explain which article you are referring to? I have not fully protected an article in weeks if not months. Regards  So Why  06:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My guess would be Melbourne Storm, but that article is only semi protected. Probably just a misunderstanding? Cheers, Amalthea  15:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That was my guess as well but Tony edited the article after I protected it, so I didn't think he referred to it. Hence my confusion above. Regards  So Why  16:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My mistake: sorry. I looked at the first, not both, of the edit summaries (only the second said "semi-"). On that matter, the measure has expired and already an anon has come in to POV it. Please consider a longer semiprotect, since the issue is likely to continue for at least a week. Tony   (talk)  03:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. The protection summaries are standardized and as such don't mention the kind of protection (the "edit=auto" and "move=auto" parts of it are included for that reason although I understand that they are less informative to a new user). As for re-protecting, the article is now unprotected for a day and only one such edit was made (and it was not vandalism but, as you say, POV-style emphasizing). I think we should wait whether the kind of vandalism really returns or whether this was a single incident. If there is more disruptive editing, please feel free to ask me directly or use WP:RFPP again. Regards  So Why  08:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010
<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) 15:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jay Cammillieri
Hi SoWhy. Thanks for the message. Just to point out that I didn't actually tag this article for speedy deletion - I noticed that one of the closing brackets for the sd tag was missing, and I added it back in. Someone else had already tagged this previously. Regards, CLW (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey and thanks for the notice. Yes, unfortunately the script does only check for the last one to add the tag, no matter how. I'll move the message to the correct user's talk page. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. :-) Regards  So Why  10:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Declan Crumley
That talkpage of a deleted article by you is still around. Morenooso (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I had to leave the PC after clicking "delete" in the CSDHelper and so I did not notice the talk page deletion request until now. I took care of it. Regards  So Why  12:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Stuff happens. I'm a real klutz when I get hungry! ;) --Morenooso (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010
<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) 13:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)