User talk:SoWhy/Archive 6

Thank you
Thanks for your help. Please added the article of Islam in Albania to your watchlist. I have reported the IP on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Please take a look. Thank you again and best wishes to you. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I will do so. I am sorry, but I have no experience with WP:SSP, so I will let someone experienced handle it. Regards  So Why  21:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Move request of SCI FI
Is there enough consensus at Talk:SCI FI to now move the article back to Sci Fi Channel (United States)? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I completed the move. I hope you understand why I did not want to do it without discussion. Regards  So Why  06:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and yes, I did :) It was interesting how many folks were like "whoa" because we'd all taken it off our watchlists for one reason or another LOL -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy Yourself Tonight
Can you protect Enjoy Yourself Tonight again for a longer time? This IP vandal has been active for quite a while, and may last a long while. And there are several other pages that s/he frequents--just look at those IPs' contributions. HkCaGu (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as it is only once IP, blocking it is the way to go instead of protecting. Use warnings and report to WP:AIV then. If multiple IPs start vandalizing, use WP:RFPP to request protection again, rather than contacting me directly, as I cannot guarantee to always reply this fast. Regards  So Why  13:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. This vandal uses dynamic IP, so it changes every time. But it's been the same first 6 digits. HkCaGu (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hey, what's up? Long time no see :)

I wanted to ask for your input on something. Lately I've been mainly reverting vandalism and fixing some disambiguation links (which I plan to do in more depth soon), basically gnome work and RC patrolling—and I have some plans to work on certain articles somewhere in the near future. But for now, I'd like a suggestion from you. What area of Wikipedia would you suggest for me to look into working on? Is there any particular task you'd recommend for a newbie like me? I still want to keep on doing what I'm doing now, but I also want to find other ways to contribute to the project. Any ideas?

Thanks, hope you're doing well :) – Quadrivial Mind  (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, first off, I hope you do well too. Then, I cannot tell you what you what you should do, you have to know what you like doing and just dive into it. If you need suggestions what needs doing, take a look at Category:Wikipedia backlog. There is enough work to do and most of it can be done by a newbie. You just have to read up on how to do the work but if you do, there should not be much you need to be "experienced" to do (well, barring things like closing AfDs and suchlike).
 * But, as I said, I do not know what you like. There are backlogs for menial, routine tasks like cleanup and for tedious tasks like searching the web for sources. All work you put in there is greatly appreciated and if you think you cannot do it without more experience, just choose something else. There are tons of things in that category that anyone can do, regardless of their wiki-knowledge. And if you need help once you found something, come back to me and I will try to provide it. Regards  So Why  22:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for protecting Wendy Carlos. We'll see how it goes. K8 fan (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, you are welcome. I suggest you handle the situation with the editor not affected as I laid out. Regards  So Why  22:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In the End (Kat DeLuna song) - Speedy thing
Sorry about that, I'm new to speedies (I usually stick to the safer AfD's) and wasn't aware of that. I've always believed that unsourced info should be removed from Wikipedia without hesitation, thus removing all the content was appropriate (since it was all unsourced). Then I decided to speedy it since it was blank. Regardless, I want you to know that I was acting in good faith and apologize if I was wasting your time. I won't do that again. Sorry. — Realist  2  21:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know you were. But with songs and albums, information in infoboxes is usually not attributed to refs unless questioned, as you surely know. So I would advise against removing that information straight ahead if it is not questionable. After all, things like the song name are usually sourced (by the album's article) and the other things cna be sourced there or by a simple look at Amazon or suchlike. As for taggings, CSD#A3 is for articles created without content (or only links or suchlike). If not created this way, other criteria are to be used. For example, there is A9 for musical recordings. And if A9 does not work, as here, PROD or AFD should be used instead. Regards  So Why  21:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw AFD
Hi, SoWhy. Could you please withdraw this AFD because I'm not sure how.

Thanks a lot!;

cf38 talk  22:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I did it. You are welcome.  So Why  22:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Nongleton pattern
I'm surprised you trust French Wikipedia to be more effective at detecting and removing hoax articles than we are. Anyone can make mistakes! --Russ (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure they can. My point was only that if they haven't detected it, we have to assume good faith regarding the person who translated it and thus cannot delete it as a hoax that is so obvious that it qualifies for G3 as vandalism. Regards  So Why  09:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection of CONCACAF Champions League 2008–09 Group Stage
It looks like you've semi-protected this page. I was actually the last person to edit it anonymously. I've had a look at recent contributions from other IPs, and I don't see anything that looks like vandalism. Could you identify the vandalism you were talking about in your edit summary here? Thanks. 67.150.252.7 (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The vandalism is explained in the sentence after it: A group of IPs, probably sock puppets of another registered account, keep changing information against consensus, so the pages were protected to prevent the editor to circumvent WP:3RR by using IPs as blocking the IPs was not an option. I am sorry for the inconvenience. Regards  So Why  10:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I've looked at the history of the page, and don't see anything that looks like vandalism. Could you point to specific edits of that page please? 67.150.252.26 (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm...you are right. I checked a bunch of protection requests for similar articles of that topic at random and must have missed it in this case. I unprotected it as such. Regards  So Why  09:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but the page still seems to be semi-protected. 67.150.244.85 (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

taliban treatment of women
You semied this page, stating that there was "vandalism - pov pushing ips. Could you decribe how I was pov pushing but the other editor was not? Thanks. 32.142.232.61 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a mistake, I misclicked a previously used protection summary. It is now fully protected until the dispute is resolved.  So Why  19:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I look forward to discussing the other editors views on the article over the next week.32.136.255.196 (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI
Just an FYI, on your post at Talk:Road to Germany, BrianGriffin-FG had reposted your previous comments, with timestamp, as he agreed with them. I removed the second set of comments, as it looked like you had posted again. I Let him know that he shouldn't do that.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 20:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan
I think your experiment with unprotecting has proven itself to be a failure. Good intent, but there are a few celebrities that are vandalism magnets, and she's one.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it was worth a try. I re-semi-ed it. Regards  So Why  05:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Lorin Enterprises Inc.
"Lorin Enterprises Inc." ‎ was deleted for Blatant advertising even though I took Special precaution to avoid advertising them at all. I am a Computer Gamer and I would like other gamers such as myself to be able to read about Lorin Enterprises Inc. and how it was founded created and maintained. They are a business worth noting in Wikipedia. Would you please tell me how it was blatant Advertising so I can go back and adjust it. I have read all the rules and regulations to editing and followed them to the T. Will you please give me advice on what I should do so it is not deleted for advertising? I spent a lot of time creating this article and its upsetting to see it deleted so easily. I read what you have on your page about im probably here because you deleted my page and it wasn't you it was a patrol but I didn't use any "advertising words" or try to promote them in any way just information based on my resources. JohnTheJagger (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, and I am quoting quite random here, using of "Inc." or &reg; in sentences, referring to people with their first name and speech that suggests personal involvement of the creator.
 * Also, the other (and more obvious), reason here was criterion #A7 for speedy deletion. You should try to read our notability guidelines regarding business. In this case there was no reason to assume that this business would meet those guidelines, not even did the article assert why this should be considered likely. I doubt you can write the article in a way to meet these requirements if the company itself does not become more notable. I am sorry to have deleted it when you put so much work in it but a proposed deletion or deletion discussion about it would certainly have resulted in the same result. Regards  So Why  17:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Lorin Enterprises Inc.
It's ok, but thanks for the information I know your just doing as the guidelines instruct.

JohnTheJagger (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

University Painters
Just an FYI that I semi-protected the page after your decline of the request for semi-protection. We've got anons removing the advert/NPOV templates at the article top and inserting long lists of pro-UP links, so I figured I'd slap semi-protection on it and see if the problem stops. Let me know if you disagree with the call. Thanks. Mr. Darcy talk 22:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, my point was that it's only 2 IPs within five days doing so, so it would be easier to warn and block the IPs than to protect. As always, I do not mind if someone else sees it differently, I am still learning the admin stuff after all ;-)  So Why  23:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer to protect a page rather than to block an IP in case it's an IP used by multiple people. Since these anons are just attacking this one article, there seemed to be more risk in blocking them than in protecting the page. Anyway, I guess we can just see how it goes the next few days and reassess as needed. Mr. Darcy talk 23:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

that RFC on the Papa Dee article
hello SoWhy - i thought it would be fitting to let you know about this note that i just left for another editor regarding that RFC in progress on the Talk:Papa Dee page. after i left that note i reverted the edit that he/she had just made to the article - as an impartial editor who joined that RFC, it seems to me that the fresh edit was not in the spirit of the RFC effort to reach consensus on that paragraph. i sure hope there's not going to be another round of edit-warring over it, since the others involved in the RFC seem to be making sincere efforts to reach a consensus. Sssoul (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, I had already noticed it myself in this case, but I appreciate the thought nonetheless. I agree with your assumption and I think we will be right about it unless he starts edit-warring over it instead of discussing. If he does so, he knows (as I have wrote him) that he risks being blocked again and I am sure another admin (I am not impartial anymore) will take the necessary steps if needed. But as you said, let's assume that it was not in bad faith. Regards  So Why  13:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * cool - thanks for the response and for taking an interest. Sssoul (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

here i am again, So Why, with a fresh question about the RfC on the Talk:Papa Dee page: we seem to have reached a consensus, so is it time to "stabilize" the discussion by putting and  on it? and to remove the RfC banner? i've never done either of those steps before, so a] i'm not sure if there are any non-obvious additional steps that should be taken; and b] i thought i'd ask you if you want to do the honours, since you're (i believe!) the one who opened the RfC. thanks ... Sssoul (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yes I did, because I blocked one of the users and tried to get them to talk. But I fear I could be biased when assessing that consensus, so to prevent anyone from even claiming that the consensus was assessed incorrectly, I would suggest you ask someone uninvolved you trust to take give input on how to react to that discussion. If you do not know anyone you trust, you can check WP:HAU to find someone active. Regards  So Why  19:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks SoWhy - i've asked someone from that WP:HAU list ... or i'll just do it myself. i still feel impartial 8) Sssoul (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hammersoft claiming to speak for you
In User talk:Kww, Hammersoft claims that he knows your opinion on Image:CheetahGirlsDiscography.jpg, which is being discussed at. Please let me know if he represented your views accurately.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the full thread on Companions.jpg which he linked, where I present my point of view. This particular image was considered POINTy by every user involved, uploaded by Hammersoft despite his argument in favor of deletion of such images. He is trying to argue based on WP:OSE while there is not even a conclusion to the aforementioned debate yet. I do support the possibility of such images to be kept as fair use but I have only made this argument for the unique case of Companion.jpg. I doubt it can be applied 1:1 to any other article, but it could be allowable under WP:NFCC if argued to fulfill its criteria.
 * I stand by my opinion though that this particular upload, no matter what Hammersoft claims, was done to prove a point, by a user who argued for days (and still does) that such images should not be allowed. The IfD on Companion.jpg should be closed with a result soon, being open for 6 days now already. You should be able to argue based on that result, no matter what it is. If it is kept, Hammersoft's argument is WP:OSE. If it's deleted, his argument of WP:OSE is void, as his own arguments from that debate can be transferred then. Regards  So Why  18:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your assertion where you state that every user involved felt the new image was a violation of WP:POINT is false. There are 23 editors involved in that debate. Are you claiming to speak for all of them? Not to mention the fact that at least one editor specifically felt it was not a violation of WP:POINT. See User_talk:Hammersoft. I am making no effort in any respect to disrupt the project nor make any claim regarding other stuff existing. I have been and continue to attempt to focus discussion by asking appropriate questions to the debate. That is what these deletion discussions are for. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I am only speaking for those who commented on the image, not everyone ever posting at the debate. That would not be a very logical interpretation of my statement, albeit one possible. And you do not expect me to check every user's talk page to find such concessions, do you? I can and will only judge what I can read at the debate if I am commenting on the debate itself. After all, noone can read minds.
 * You say you want to focus discussion by asking questions - that's fine. Uploading a (in your eyes) similar image which promptly causes another IfD (and where you argue on grounds of the main debate, which is not even closed yet), is imho not asking questions. It is causing more work for everyone around to illustrate a point because this discussion now is completely unnecessary, as is the upload and to be expected IfD of Image:CheetahGirlsDiscography.jpg. Creating more work and involving editors into such conflicts, caused by an image that you had uploaded to prove your point (and that is the case because a.) you uploaded it after you heard the arguments in favor of keeping Companions.jpg and b.) after uploading referred to it as the prime example why your point is to be considered correct). The upload served for a variant of WP:OSE, trying to justify another image based on keep's for a certain image (a so-called reductio ad absurdum, which is not a valid argument).
 * So no matter how much you now say, it was not POINTy, the upload itself and the argument you based on it were clearly made to prove your point that the rule against covers for discography-lists should apply to Companion (Doctor Who). Regards  So Why  19:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So much for another behavioral guideline. I readily admit that it's easy to knee jerk assume I was trying to do something pointy. Hell, we all see it on Wikipedia enough to create that behavior in ourselves where we immediately presume guilt before pausing, even for a second, and thinking "maybe this is different". What I was doing was in no way any attempt to disrupt Wikipedia, it's operations, harm the project, harm content, or harm users. I vociferously, adamantly deny any claim in that vein. Whether you wish to be convinced of that is not my problem anymore and I wash my hands of it. My conscience is absolutely, 100% clear. Good day. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith is nice and fine - but all you said and have done was not allowing people to assume it. You changed your statements after I made the comment I am referring to above. While AGF may be possible taking your new statements into account, I have not commented on your behavior after I made said comment. Regards  So Why  20:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankspam reply
I'm catching up on my neglected talk page mail. Thanks for your thanks. If you hadn't been a good candidate, you wouldn't have passed, regardless of my nom. Thanks to you for all your work here. --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Gary Cooper
Hi, could you please look at Talk:Gary Cooper. This edit from a banned user, which is about as incivil as you're likely to see, and which is using your invitation to participate as some kind of justification. He's a long-standing one-issue trouble maker, and I don't really understand why you suggested he comment on the talk page, but the result is highly undesirable. I'm not sure what is the right thing to do here, but comments like his are unacceptable. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If it really is a banned user, I suggest WP:SSP to block this IP as a sockpuppet. My comment on the talk page was to any IPs who want to make constructive edits (as I wrote), not vandals. I warned the IP for it with uw-npa4im. If they do it again, report to the appropriate admin noticeboard. Regards  So Why  15:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the info. Rossrs (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Article Has No Relevance?
I would like to know why you have deleted my page, Sous Chef, LLP. This is an actual company with a product that is attempting to gain capital to begin production. I am following guidelines on how to make an article. I think I should be given ample time to complete my article before it is deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nymets1726 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it was deleted 5 times now, by different admins, so you should consider if the problem might be with you instead with the deleting admins. I stand by my deletion, the article did not indicate why the company should be considered important. You say yourself that it is currently in creation, seeking to gain capital to begin production. So we can rightly assume it's not important at the current moment and the article did not assert any notability.  So Why  22:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Restore My Page... the Haiku.
Why did you delete

My Wikipedia thing

Can you put it back.

Please.

p.s. That was fun. I like Haikus.

I hope this works.

Missindi (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny, but not really working I am afraid. After I checked which page you are referring to (which you should tell me yourself usually), I am afraid there is no reason to restore it. "he is too cool for you" is not really a valid claim of importance. You should read up on the notability guidelines for biographical articles. Regards  So Why  13:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Soft redirects to Commons in main namespace
In a few of your recent edits, you changed soft redirects to plain redirects on the basis that we should not have "no soft redirects to commons in article space". I didn't see anything about that in Soft redirect, but have seen quite a few soft redirects to other projects from the main namespace already. I think the soft redirects were more useful to the reader than plain redirects. Would you please explain your reasoning? -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I discussed it with some admins on IRC and we agreed that soft redirects may be useful for Wiktionary links but not links to other projects. I think in such cases links to Commons can be compared to articles where the content is only images or external links (which are subject to deletion under A3). Those articles are only links to categories on commons, which is not really helpful for the casual reader. Instead, the Commons-template in Coin should provide the same links in context.
 * Also, those articles are not really likely search terms...so their benefit is really nil because they make only sense when linked by some other article...but then you can link to commons directly instead as well. So I'd more like to know why you think they are useful to anyone... Regards  So Why  17:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * They are likely search terms because someone went to the trouble of creating articles about them, and several people voiced their support of keeping those articles at their AfD discussion. In addition, there were 224 hits for "gallery of coins" last month, and almost 1000 hits for "gallery of banknotes". If you're interested in establishing this as a common practice, I would rather we have an open discussion somewhere public like Wikipedia talk:Soft redirect before we go changing everything. -- Explodicle (T/C) 20:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Soft redirect, if you wouldn't mind I'd like to continue the discussion there. -- Explodicle (T/C) 20:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the AfD also resulted in delete, so your articles are recreation against consensus. You should be careful invoking those discussions thus. I understand that "gallery of banknotes" or "gallery of coins" may be search terms, but that is surely not the case with "gallery of African coins" or suchlike. As I said, those few people (224 hits is nothing compared with 19000 for "coin") who search like that will find the same content with the use of Commons.
 * I doubt there is much discussion about it to be expected but I am happy to join in. Regards  So Why  21:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Recreation of an article would have been against consensus, no one had a problem with the soft redirect. Even the AfD nominator specifically stated he was OK with it.
 * If you don't think a redirect is useful at all, then by all means feel free to nominate it for deletion at WP:RfD. I'm interested in maximizing the usefulness of the redirects we actually have. If you feel strongly that we shouldn't have one for Gallery of Africa coins, I don't have a major issue with deletion.
 * If you think an article would also be useful to someone searching for a gallery, I would have no problem with adding above the soft redirect template. That way the reader will know there is useful information on Wikipedia, and the actual gallery they searched for is on Commons.
 * -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Larry Joe Doherty page
Will you please help me protect the Larry Joe Doherty page. It is now being attacked by an anon user and likely campaign staffer. How can we protect this page through election day? Thanks. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm...okay. I protected it for a day, expiring tomorrow at 11:12 UTC. Regards  So Why  11:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Batyr
Thanks for considering SP anyway. I'm not clear on WP:3R in this situation; am I free to revert the IP edits as vandalism, as they have no intention of sourcing these assertions? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You may do so if it is obvious under the definition under WP:VAND. If you are unsure, you should not revert them, instead you should try to message those IPs on their talk pages and try to enlist some third-party opinion on the talk page, using WP:3PO or WP:RFC for example. Regards  So Why  19:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Home town history deleted?
I have a message for you, why you keep deleting my home town history. i have posted 5 time. If you don't like Caribbean people let me know to get legal help. Please stop undoing my work. if you have any question. this is my personal message . thanks. If i did something wrong posting let me know but i want my home town to have the right information from some the know the history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.127.245.114 (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You could tell me which page you are referring to because I have no idea which of my thousands of edits you are referring to. Regards  So Why  07:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Miles&Smiles
Hi,

I wanna you lift blocked on Miles & Smiles page, please. No longer I don't make same mistake.

Thanks

212.175.83.252 (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please contact the administrator who protected the page, . Regards  So Why  09:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you,
For the input regarding the SSP, I hadn't known about account creation dates. It has been re-arranged and fixed.— Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 11:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Northern Sami userboxes
There already are userboxes for Northern Sami, which is why I requested a speedy (but obviously I should have stated that). They’re at User sme-X. I was going to move them once the others were deleted; I’ve changed every occurence of User se-X to User sv-X</tt> now, so there’s no conflict. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes you should have. I suggest you use db-move (using ) to request those deletions again, while specifying what to move there, so the handling admin is provided with a quick link to delete-and-move to the new name. Regards  So Why  22:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. I’m not very familiar with the template jungle here. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. That's why I am here after all, to help. Regards  So Why  22:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Tagged. [[Image:Face-wink.svg|20px]] Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you SoWhy for deleting "Request for Deletion" Page. Really Appreciate it.--Elite Rhodes (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, you are welcome. Just ask if you need further help :-)  So Why  17:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok will do --Elite Rhodes (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Rahm Emanuel
Would you consider un-protecting this page now that he has been named to the position? Thanks. <font STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Gtstricky Talk or C 20:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Regards  So Why  20:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cheers <font STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Gtstricky Talk or C 20:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Surprise!
(Feel free to move this to your user page as appropriate. I don't usually edit other editor's user pages.)


 * Thank you, I feel truly honored! Regards  So Why  22:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.
Hey SoWhy. Thank you for accepting my RFPP on Saints Row 2, its about time protection came for that page, people are constantly messing around with it. If you have it, I'd be glad to have a game on SR2 (X360) with ya as a Thank you. DJ MeXsTa (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC) (The one and only!)
 * Sure, no problem. It's what I do around here ;-)
 * Ah, too bad, I am a PC user for my games, so I fear that won't happen. But enjoy it! :-)  So Why  18:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.
Thanks for the barnstar. I though after you became an admin you are focusing less on gaming article. Are you still on?. I need help with some articles. --SkyWalker (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I never was much of an article writer, neither as an user nor as an admin. I prefer my admin-y duties to that, I just have Red Alert 3 on my watchlist as the game interests me. But you should keep up the good work! :-)  So Why  19:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Me two iam not all an article writer. Thanks. I having 12,000 entries on my watchlist is tough. --SkyWalker (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing "speedy delete" from Lisa Lutz
Hi, SoWhy, thanks for speedily deleting the "speedy delete" tag on Lisa Lutz. I was a little worried, as it was my first article. Is there anything else I need to do in the near future? I requested assistance on the talk page of the person who originally added the tag, and they simply deleted my comments! Oh well. cojoco (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you are welcome. It just was not correct in this case, although the article may still be deleted using articles for deletion. I suggest you work on the article to avoid such fate, preferably using other articles as guidelines and reading the manual of style. If you need help with working on the article, you might want to as at WikiProject Biography and/or WikiProject Literature.
 * And well, as for the deleted comments, that's life. Noone is forced to help you and if they think it's the right thing to ignore you, don't feel bad. There are plenty of people who are willing to help you :-) Regards  So Why  14:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Roughton Reynolds
Hello i was just wondering if i could have a copy of my deleted article about Roughton Reynolds to <E-Mail removed>. I was planning on finnishing the article today and didnt realise it would have been deleted so quickly. Also, why exactly was the article deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazrose8 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * E-Mail sent. Regards  So Why  13:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

CloseXfD.js
Thought I forgot, huh? =) Well, it took longer than "a few days", but I finally found the time to look into your request.  I've got a very bleary eyed alpha version available at User:Gogo Dodo/CloseXfD.js.  I believe it works for AfD, MfD, and IfD.  It doesn't do the correct thing when it comes to marking a closed XfD on a talk page (hence the alpha code), so don't use those buttons yet on a Talk page.  I'll fix that when I'm a little more coherent.  Anyways, can you check it out to see if I'm headed in the direction that you were expecting?  If you add: importScript('User:Gogo_Dodo/CloseXfD.js'); to your monobook.js, it should load it in.  The MfD and IfD closure works like the previous script in that it does not actually save closure or delete the article/image.  You still need to click Save page and do the deletion yourself. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nah, I haven't, I just thought you were fed up with it ;-)
 * Great job you did there, it does most of what I thought it should, so thanks for that.
 * Some simple requests though, if I may:
 * AfD Helper adds a "vote!" link to each section's "edit"-link - I wonder if you could add a "close"-link in the same manner?
 * Same script, AfD helper, has simple abbreviation for common !votes, i.e. you enter "d" and it writes "delete". It would be cool to have something like this.
 * It also allows to enter comments, which might be useful sometimes, so I wonder if you could add another JS-input-window after the one asking for the outcome that allows entering a comment (optionally of course)? So it will produce result. Comment (if provided) ~.
 * Would it be possible to change it to save the page automatically? And if so, could it load the delete page for the page in question automatically in a new window and fill in the summary? Or would that be too complicated to code?
 * Regards and thanks again!  So Why  11:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I released a new version that adds in RfD support and fixed up the location of the top closure notice on IfDs. Somewhere along the line, somebody decided to put the and  below the section header while MfD and AfD go above. Talk page closure notification is still not working.

I do like the AfD Helper interface, but it would take some major reworking of the code in order to merge the functionality of the current script with the interface of AfD Helper. I'll think it over though (mainly by going to read the code of AfD Helper to figure out how it works). Same thing for having the page save automatically. Give me "a few days". =D -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Onur Pasha
Hi, I have noticed that you removed the speedy deletion tag in the article Onur Pasha, maybe I could not place the most suitable tag for its deletion, but I know that the person claimed in the article did not exist, if you read the article you can see that it is a kind of joke. So, what sort of tag could be suitable for the article to replace? Thanks. --Chapultepec (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not know that. G3 can only be used in cases of obvious hoaxes; here there are some Google hits, so it may still be a hoax, but not an obvious one. I suggest WP:AFD or WP:PROD instead. Regards  So Why  18:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Yes I found some google links. Generally blogger nicknames and Wikipedia articles that the same user has created or modified. But I cannot really be sure how to prove that it is a hoax. Anyway, I will try to utilize the links you have given. Thanks a lot. --Chapultepec (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Surremail
I needed that surremail article for a project for my social studies class on our study of clinically insane. It would be nice if you just didn't go around deleting things for no apparent reason. Thanks a lot for ruining my project. This website is stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.242.93.10 (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a reason. Wikipedia is not a place for social studies classes to run around and create articles with no further use to the rest of the world. I doubt that calling it stupid helps.  So Why  19:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Mustafa jamal waa wiil somali ah oo ku nool dalka mareykanka
Hello. Just to let you know I didn't put the db-nonsense on this page for the heck of it. The language is Somali, not Malay and while it doesn't quite make it as an attack page, it's got nothing redeemable in it. Someone's also taken it upon themselves to transwiki it to the Somali wikipedia. -Yupik (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I deleted it as A2 then. Regards  So Why  07:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

RFP
Hi, before reported at RFP, I notified the issue to this admin and another user also reported it at the same admin and this ssp. However, I do not think a range block would be sufficient as the indef used blockee is using multiple, a couple of ip's & other meat puppet ip's (see the history). I see that many established users are spending a great effort on reverting this vandal's edit and therefore, I suggest you to temp block those pages could be a good idea of stopping his vandalism. Also, note that there aren't any good contribs from anons in that articles. Even, if the ip range are blocked, the vandal may use other ip's as meat puppets, as he already done so (I think that the ip belongs to a school - see the comment from the sock here That we are an institute and many of us use this IP address was not considered by the declining Admin. Thats it and now the rest in your hand. Cheers. -- <font style="color:#1849B5;background:#FAFBCB;">Googlean <font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> Results  02:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To see a complete range of jobxavier, pl refer to this & this too. Thanks. -- <font style="color:#1849B5;background:#FAFBCB;">Googlean <font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> Results  02:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, you should include a link to the case you are referring to, like this. Then, I stand by my decision, although another admin apparently decided to protect it anyway. Those IPs can easily be trapped with range-soft-blocks, so protection should be the last venue to go according to the protection policy. Also, we cannot protect pages preemptively on the notion that the sockpuppetteer might use different methods to continue vandalizing; we can only judge the correct level of protection by the previous vandalism that actually happened... So I wonder what you are trying to tell me here...please elaborate what you think I should do. Regards  So Why  07:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Smart lighting speedy
You forgot to close the Smart lighting RfD. Already done to tidy up. Cheers. -- Alexf(talk) 12:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh, sorry. Thanks for cleaning up behind me. That IP tagged everything as CSD what he posted there... :-/ Regards  So Why  12:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding semi-protect on a afd article
did you actually check how many single purpose accounts were editing Alexnia (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not important for WP:PROTECT. If there is SPAs editing, we just let them and then judge consensus including this information. As long as they are not vandalizing or causing disruption (apart from !voting in a certain way), protection is not the correct way to handle it. AfDs need to be accessible for everyone as much as possible to allow IP editors to !vote as well and it does not matter if they abuse this right and !vote multiple times because we do not judge by numbers but by arguments. Regards  So Why  17:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection of I'm a Celebrity... Get Me out of Here! (Series 8 UK)
I dropped a note on RFPP, but I thought I should post it here too, just in case you don't notice it there. This article needs to be unprotected. The IP edits are overwhelmingly constructive. Only a few have been reverted and many of those were good faith edits, not vandalism. لenna vecia  18:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny thing, I just left you a message, when you left me one. Ahh, who am I kidding, you are correct of course. I checked a few of them but most were speculations against the source. I should not be so hasty I guess, so forgive me please. You live and learn after all (At any rate, you live... ;-)). Regards  So Why  18:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha. Thanks, not a big deal. We (admins) are a team, after all. لenna  vecia  18:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Now it's just the question - what kind of team? The League of Extraordinary WikiUsers? Or maybe the A(dmin)-Team? Or just people with certain abilities that form no common alliance? Note to self: We need a cool team name, outfits and of course, capes! ;-)  So Why  18:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mass redirects
Would you mind commenting here? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. I did so. Regards  So Why  09:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Requests for page protection
I posted a comment regarding Black Death, cheers. Gary King ( talk ) 22:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment to RFPP
 * Kind of pointless then? The article has proven that it will get consistently vandalized, and it is not related to something like a current event, etc. Gary King  ( talk ) 22:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * /Comment to RFPP


 * I hope you don't mind me replying here: You are correct. I only took into account the last protection to base my prediction on, not seeing that the article has already received more than 3 months durations. I decided to increase the duration drastically now, seeing that more than 3 months have not worked in the past. Sorry for the inconvenience. Regards  So Why  07:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Another request
Looks like Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is still getting vandalised a lot. Maybe it needs to be semi-protected again? Last one expired 10nov. Webbbbbbber (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I protected it for another month. In future I suggest you take it to WP:RFPP though. Regards  So Why  23:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I didn't know about WP:RFPP; I'll use that in the future. Webbbbbbber (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Atlanta Gay Men's Chorus
Would you pop by Talk:Atlanta Gay Men's Chorus to see why I think that article qualifies for db-spam? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. I provided a detailed rationale for why I declined it there. Regards  So Why  09:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm going to check in with WP:LGBT and see if anyone else thinks it can be salvaged. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Just thought I would say thank you for semi-protecting John Deere. Hopefully the IPs will stay away with a week to think about their actions, or maybe they'll just forget about it. ;-) --IvoShandor (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. You are welcome :-)  So Why  18:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Barbara Rosenthal page
you wrote that it was protected and deleted because it was changed alot but several grad students are working to get this up. of course it was done alot becaues it was taken down alot. How can we work on this so if you take it down again we can put it up again and it wont bedeleted protected again, please. Semmasemma7 (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It was protected because it was repeatedly recreated with copyright violations. Wikipedia cannot allow copyrighted content to be included and as people did break this core policy multiple times, it was locked down within the protection policy. I suggest you create such article without any copyrighted content within userspace, for example at User:Semmasemma7/Barbara Rosenthal. Once you did so and completed all work you deem necessary so that the article will not fail our notability guidelines, I suggest you ask me or at WP:RFPP to get the page unprotected so the new article can be moved there. Regards  So Why  18:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Small question...
Hi, a few days ago I made an article named "Illutia". I worked very hard on it, I wrote it in the most encyclopedic way that I can, I didn't advertise/spam or anything at all - yet it was deleted. The official website of Illutia(which is a free MMORPG) was my source for all the information that I wrote in that article, and not a complete copy. I would appreciate it if you could tell me the main reason why the article was deleted, and if there's something I can do to bring it back. Thanks, Sinjid40 (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did not delete it. Furthermore, I declined to delete it, based on the fact that this article was about software and not web content (and thus not eliglible for delete as criterion A7 for speedy deletion). It was re-tagged for deletion despite my decision and deleted by so I suggest you ask him to explain why he deleted it. Regards  So  Why  10:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!
Thanks for supporting me at my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you in the future!--Aervanath lives in <b style="color:green;">the Orphanage</b> 17:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection
Thank you for reinstating semi protection on Che Guevara. It is essential I believe to maintaining a quality article on such a notable & polarizing figure. <font color="#FF3333">Red <font color="#FFCC00">thoreau (talk)RT 17:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. It was needed :-)  So Why  17:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

MPDS
Re this decline. If you look at the articles created by Rex57, you can see that he created an enormous series of acronyms as redirects (some up to around 20 characters). When I speedied the entire list, this was one of them. Is it one of the worst? Clearly not. Is it good to have around? No. Since no one is going to look for this game under this initialism, it doesn't serve any benefit as a search term. If something comes along that really could use this initialism, editing the redirect is just one more step that novice editors have trouble with.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I have seen many acronyms used for videogames in the past, so I think it might be useful for someone. You cannot say that noone will look at it under this name, because you cannot predict how people behave. My reasoning was simply on this fact and that this acronym is not used at the moment. I am more than confident that anyone who wants to use this for a better article will be able to create it despite the redirect. But as long as noone does, why delete it if there is a chance it could be useful? Regards  So Why  23:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocking script
Thanks for the blocking script. Do you have any more scripts that might be useful for a new admin?--Aervanath lives in <b style="color:green;">the Orphanage</b> 12:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take a look at my monobook.js. Especially CloseAFD and protection.js are quite useful. I also suggest you take a look at the monobook.js of some other admins you know to use scripts, like Xenocidic's. Last but not least you should take a look at WP:JS (especially the admin section). Regards  So Why  12:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Code Geass characters
The dispute has been resolved (the correct spelling was located on an official web page). Please remove the full protection. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 01:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Has already been unprotected by . Regards  So Why  07:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A big honking OOPS
I should suggest to zman that his closing script check to see if the article has already been closed before closing it :( --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you should ;-) But hey, that's why there is an undo-button after all, no harm done^^  So Why  14:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Help me, then, adopt me, if you please
Oh, my error. And thanks for your visit and putting the template upon my User Page. Previously, I did not commit this adopter template mistake, but due to hurry, I copy pasted the template in the adopters talk pages. Thanks so much. And can you please adopt me? Hoping so. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey. First off, no problem with that. I was checking the cat and noticed some users there that should not belong so I decided to correct it. No harm done. Then, since I saw you already got an adopter and since I noticed you already had an RfC and are currently blocked indef, I am not sure I can help you. While I believe you may be a good editor with adoption help, I have not the time to provide the adoption you need. Regards  So Why  07:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Rm because user is on ANI
Could you point me to the guideline stating that this should be done? If I recall correctly, AIV can be used as a supplement to ANI if immediate blocking is required; the user has violated their final warning. <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; neuro(talk) 12:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There isn't. But the user has not received a level 4 warning yet, just a level 3. Also, the user is a suspected sockpuppet (see Suspected sock puppets/Sonu-nn), so WP:SSP would be correct. I was just looking through it actually... Regards  So Why  12:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * uw-3rr doesn't count as a user warning, despite the uw prefix? <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; neuro(talk) 12:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It does. Point is, it was added very shortly before the last edit by the user, so I could not be sure they noticed it. They stopped for 15 minutes afterwards (while I was looking through the SSP report). I have blocked them now after they re-started. Regards  So Why  12:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:Editnotice section
Heya! Anyway, you said you didn't know how to make the in-edit text show up, so I figured I'd tell you; just create the magical edit banner at User talk:SoWhy/Editnotice. Basically design it like any other page (or just put in text, your call). :D Cheers, Master of Puppets  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d">Call me MoP! :)  14:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hah, thanks for helping the newbie :-D  So Why  14:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that you've been here for a year more than me, no problem! ;) Cheers, Master of Puppets  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d">Call me MoP! :)  14:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Tribble Reese
I saw that you deleted or put on hold the article that I wrote about my friend Tribble Reese...He is a bachelor of the year and also a quarterback and people are always searching/asking about him. He is a very prominent name in the college football world as he is receiving NFL looks while also being declared bachelor of the year by Cosmopolitan Magazine... I saw that his page was once deleted so I tried to write a legitimate article about him but it was put on hold for not being CLEAR enough...Please help me decide what I should do for him? Tribble11 (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read up on Wikipedia's guidelines for the notability of living persons. If you think you can write a neutral article that meets those guidelines, feel free to do so. But if the article you write does not even indicate why the person in question is notable, it will be deleted. Regards  So Why  14:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Alissa White-Gluz
Am I missing something? Articles for deletion/Alissa White-Gluz shows a close as a merge, but the article remains untouched. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Closing statements of debates are nothing more than stating the facts. I wanted to leave it to someone with experience in the area to determine what needs to be merged and what not. Also, I am at work at the moment and lack time to do so myself. You are free to perform the merge yourself :-) Regards  So Why  14:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I see the Talk notes to that effect now. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for responding. The was not for getting the issue resolved. I placed it for the reason stated in the last sentence of my rather lengthy plea for help: "I don't know where to start to resolve this." Thanks for the suggestions. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. I just wanted to state the obvious. I hope you find the help needed with those resources. Regards  So Why  17:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers
Thanks for the RFPP on physical therapy. Do you think it was right to submit for a temporary protection over full-protection, despite it being vandalised consistently over months? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. There is no reason for anything more than a short term semi-protection for now because the article was not protected before. We don't know if it is not enough, so let's try it this way. Regards  So Why  21:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Baptist church redirects
Hi, thanks for the additional unwanted input. I had no idea about Skier Dudes status and wonder therefore who deleted the nearly 100 other no content redirects I had added earlier. No intention of being involved in an edit war or wasting any further time on a fruitless exercise where I thought I was doing a good thing removing no content nonsense. Life is just too short. Off to do something Wiki useful.Ardfern (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you should NEVER revert someone elses edits without making sure why they did so, especially not three times in a row. Yes, your mistaken CSD taggings where partially deleted, but most of them are restored now again. Please do not take it personally, it was just that we cannot break the rules set for speedy deletions by using criteria where they are not allowed to be used. It defies the point of having a strict set of criteria. Regards  So Why  22:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

request for temporary semi-protection on article Julie Bindel
Please reconsider, that was a re-listing. Within 24 hours of introduction of materials that her partisans do not like it is deleted by anonymous users. Also please note that I am just an editor who came across an article and have nothing to do with the demonstrations et. al. which are actually occurring in a different country from which I currently reside. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understood. The point was the "recent" part. The controversial edits were done on Nov 18, nothing happened by the time you requested it. So we have to assume that it stopped. Protection can only be granted if there is a justified assumption that it will continue and there was none here. Also, the disruptive editors seem to be few and can be identified and blocked (after being warned). Last but not least semi-protection would effectively also bar those anon users who cleaned up and we should try to avoid that. Regards  So Why  09:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh OK. This is the first article I had asked protection on so I'm not entirely clear how it all works. I just came across the article and saw it needed formatting and then was startled when it kept being deleted.  Further investigation revealed the subject was a self-described deliberately provocative newspaper columnist with a core following of rabid 'true-believers'.  It's my guess from what is being deleted and the comments left that it is some of that group who object to anything that might suggest their heroine writes anything that is not gospel.  If the article is disrupted again I leave a note for you here and you can decide what should be done.  CyntWorkStuff (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to explain, we all have to begin some day. I suggest you take a look at the protection policy. In a nutshell, protection is the last option to stop disruption, only to be used when blocking the users involved is not a possible option to stop disruption and if talking to the users does not work. If it reaches those levels, I suggest you take it to WP:RFPP again instead of asking me, because then it needs a swift response (and I might be offline). Regards  So Why  16:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Workspace Macro
Hi, I noticed that you closed Articles for deletion/Workspace Macro under no consensus. I was wondering why you didn't just relist the debate for more discussion, which I feel would have benefited the AfD. Thanks! D ARTH P ANDA duel 01:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because relisting is a method that is misused too often (WP:RELIST states that it should not be used as a substitution for a "no consensus"-close but it often is anyway). It has had some people participating, not only 1 or 2. And I think the main arguments were said - the !delete voters based their reasoning on the fact that the software is not notable, the !keep voters based theirs on the fact that there are enough reviews to make it notable. Point is, there was no consensus whether those sources really establish enough notability or not, so I closed it accordingly. As for the other reasons: that it is has some advertisement-language (not really much) is a reason for cleanup, not for deletion. That the creator may be in a COI is for itself never a reason for deletion. Regards  So Why  08:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand. Thanks. D ARTH P ANDA duel 14:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Winter weather
Seems it's been snowing a bit early this year. Not even Thanksgiving yet! I wanted to drop you a link given to me by another admin a while back for snow closures so we can keep all the lists nice and neat. Cheers! Frank |  talk  13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, I got 5 of 7 points. Thanks for the link, I'll add it to my handy links section, great thing. Thanks again :-)  So Why  13:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And now I find out I can't alphabetize properly. Sheesh. ;-)
 * Alphabetizing is overrated anyway ;-)  So Why  13:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hemike2003
A note to let you know that I blocked Hemike2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) indefinitely. You had previously blocked them, but unblocked after they assured you they would stop adding the links. The user has been adding the same links again. --GraemeL (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. I told them that this will happen if they continue the same way, so it was just logical. Thanks for informing me though! Regards  So Why  14:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Request to recover the page of "Thealosophers"
Dear SoWhy,

I am public relations of "Thealosophers" - a non-profit performing arts group registered in Hong Kong.

On 19 November 2008, I've tried my best to set up the page for Thealosphers to offer a detailed pictures for the public to get know to Thealosphers. Those information like the Founding Principle, Mission & Origin are all recorded in an interview with the Executive Director, Creative Director & Artistic Director of us at a TV programme named as 時事全方位 at nowTV News(Hong Kong broadband TV channel) which broadcasted on 2 September 10:00 Hong Kong.

I am writing here strongly request the page of Thealosphers could be back, if there's anything missing or mismatch the standard of wikipedia, we could fine-tune it but please do not delete it without any consent to us.

If you need, we could provide you the non-fit performing arts group registration documents for approval. Please kindly advise and bring us back the page of "Thealosophers".

I do want those who would like to explore more about "Thealosphers" could get it through wikipedia. Look forwards to your reply.

Best Regards, Thealosophers (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The page was deleted because it did not assert notability for the group. Merely existing is not a reason for a group to have a page in Wikipedia; the group must display notability. That would generally be significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. If such exist for your group, then it would be appropriate to re-create the page - including those references. Frank  |  talk  17:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Frank for your clear elaboration. Since we're new to wikipedia and amaeur group in performing arts field. We are a up-rising performing arts group. We do gained awarded from Drama Festival organized in Hong Kong by Hong Kong Federation of Drama Societies. And upon the awards, we are interviwed by the local broadband TV operator with the News programme named as 時事全方位. And we have public performances which are part of the Brecht Festival hosted by the Leisure & Cutural Services Department (LCSD) of HKSAR. Those coverage includes the ticketing selling pages, the official press release form the LCSD, I guess these coverage would be very credible as it's from the HKSAR Government. So in your terms / advices, if we could include those reference, our page could be back? (And for your infromation, you could "google" Thealosophers in Google HK page, you will get more familiar results from credible sources!)


 * Please kindly advise.Thanks very much!


 * Best Regards, Thealosophers (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, it is not our responsibility to google for sources, if there is no reason to even think that there could be any sources, especially when the article sounds like it is about an amateur group that looks for some free advertisement.
 * Then, as Frank thankfully already said, if you can provide reliable sources that can satisfy our notability guidelines and make an article that satisfies our neutral point of view-policy (which is very important!), then yes, you may recreate such an article. But even then it may still be deleted if it matches a criterion for speedy deletion or if deletion is decided within the deletion policy. You should also read the guideline about conflicts of interest. Regards  So Why  18:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara protection
In light of this discussion at WP:ANI, it may be appropriate to unprotect the page. However, it looks like we are repeating the discussion anew with another new editors who seems to be arguing the same thing. Would you suggest unprotecting and see what happens, or leave protection on until we have some resolution? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Imho the discussion on ANI that you linked does not provide a resolution, it just lead to blocks of several users. The problem itself is not resolved, as you point out, with new editors pushing for the same thing. I would leave protection for now, trying RfC or similar to reach any sort of consensus that can be enforced - even if consensus is only "include if and when reliable sources can be found that it is public domain". If there is no further talk about it for a few days, with noone trying to push the lyrics unsourced (and they can only do so via Talk pages or RFPP), we can unprotect it then. But at the moment the problem is not dealt with I am afraid.
 * On a side note, as I am quite a newbie admin still, I have requested another admin to give his input to this question, as I think the more eyes on this, the better. Regards  So Why  11:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am that other admin, so I am giving input as requested. It is clear the page has a history of edit warring, so it is fair to say that there is a good chance edit warring will resume if the page is unprotected. The full protection has not yet been left on weeks on end so I think it is worth leaving it on a bit longer to see how the RfC goes and have the benifit of consensus when unprotection happens. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Curious
I have noticed that a customised info box appears when you open the edit window of this talk page. I have not worked out how you do that, could you tell me as it could be helpful? Thanks. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Funny enough, I actually just got it from (see this section above). You just need to create a page at Special:Mytalk/Editnotice with whatever you want to have displayed (like I got User talk:SoWhy/Editnotice) and it displays there :-)
 * Oh and thanks for the input above, I appreciate it :-) Regards  So Why  13:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are quite welcome, thanks for that info. Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

G-Unit Records
I tend to protect first, and then update the RFPP page. This seems to lead to protection conflicts, although it makes sense to me, since I'm already at the page checking out the request... (grin)

That was the first time that I've had my protection run over, though. Didn't you get a warning that the page was already protected?  Horologium  (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I opened the protection page, probably seconds before you hit the "confirm"-button. Then I took a minute to write a reason and within this minute you already protected it. I didn't get any warning though that someone protected the page while I was on it, I don't think that's the software does that. First time I had a "protection conflict" as well though. Ah well, unlike with edit conflicts, no harm can be done anyway ;-)  So Why  21:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your rationale was better than mine anyway. :P  Horologium  (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh, hearing this makes me feel all warm and squishy inside ;-)  So Why  21:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Warm and squishy inside? I'll refrain from any snarky comments, but the possibilities are endless... (evil grin)  Horologium  (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed they are. But we are all adults here and do not have to make such comments anymore ;-)  So Why  21:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Herko
I obviously have no problem with this being deleted, seeing as how I nominated it for deletion, but you do realize it wasn't eligible for G4, as the current version wasn't remotely similar to the version deleted in the previous AfD, don't you? Cheers!--<font color="#960018" face="comic sans ms">Fabrictramp | <font color="#960018" face="Papyrus">talk to me  20:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct. My mistake, I should have gone with G10 as tagged. Sorry.  So Why  20:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RFPP
Leave some protection requests for me, will ya? I know you said it was you hobby, but my goodness! :P &mdash; Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 04:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, don't fear, I often check in and I see that they have not been handled for hours, so there is enough slack for you to help ;-)  So Why  15:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

List of alleged UFO-related entities
I just reverted tags that were left by ScienceApologist for the article, including advert, cleanup, confusing, fansite, globalize, in-universe, introrewrite, notability, original research, peacock, primarysources, refimprove, self-published, tone and unencyclopedic. This seems a bit excessive and not possible to be tagged for all these. My rationale was was WP:POINT being violated. Your opinion on the matter, on the talk page, would be appreciated. <font face="tahoma, sans-serif"> <font color="#887722"> D ENNIS B ROWN (T) (C)  23:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My opinion would have been to send it to WP:ANI to sanction this behavior. As you already did this and the ANI discussion felt no sanction is needed, I cannot say anything else. Yes, I personally believe that changing to redirect twice is trying to avoid the fact that deletion was not the consensus, but SA is out of his ArbCom sanction by a week which would allow blocking him for incivility for his behavior. So it's back to the community to deal with it. I'd say if he edit wars about it, take it to WP:ANEW, but otherwise you'll have to deal with him. Sorry, but there is nothing I can do about it if consensus thinks nothing should be done. Regards  So Why  07:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice
Due to the constant disruption of List of alleged UFO-related entities, I have entered a complaint at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents <font face="tahoma, sans-serif"> <font color="#887722"> D ENNIS B ROWN (T) (C)  00:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Adminsteve
You appear to have forgotten to remove the MfD tag from the usertalk page. I've done so. Not sure if you want to leave a personal message for the close as is normal for a userspace close or whether you prefer the long version of oldmfd in this case, so I'm leaving that for you. Cheers.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, of course. Sorry, I was in a hurry. I forgot that the XfD Closing script does not work like closeAFD and does not do all that automatically^^ Thanks for the reminder :-)  So Why  21:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably something we should look at fixing. I wouldn't have a clue how though.  I have only closed a couple of AfDs so I'm not really sure how they work, I have to look it up everytime.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing to fix there, the XfD closer is a new script made for easily adding outcome and the templates to archive a section, but it does unfortunately not do anything else yet. So thanks for the notice and for removing that tag :-)  So  Why  07:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

83.254.21.226 Sockpuppet of Consist
Unfortunately your block of 83.254.21.226 appears to be ineffective. He continues his rant on User Talk:83.254.21.226. What is the solution to this? Plantsurfer (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because blocked users are allowed to edit their talk page, e.g. to requestion unprotection. I think, you should just let him rant, there is nowhere else he can edit for now.
 * On a side note, you might want to take it to WP:SSP if he starts with another user/IP or the same IP after the block expires. Regards  So Why  12:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll take your advice an dignore him. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)