User talk:Splash/Archive19

temporary restoration of Yiffstar

 * I deleted it because it was an entry about a website that (despite being quite long) was not able to assert any notability at all. The relevant guidance on this point is found in this document. I'm not quite sure I understand your request; but probably not, no, as Wikipedia isn't a holding place for other websites, if that's what you mean. Splash - tk 23:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know this is not a holding site, but if the page stays deleted I just wanted to save the research data on the statistics and reference pages so it could be used to update another site that I found after the deletion and is out of date. It took hours to collect all the updated information and to find the correct reference links and it would take hours to repeat it. I have put the request in for a temporary restoration now. I hope that clarifies things. Lamoxlamae 00:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, see User:Lamoxlamae/Yiffstar. Splash - tk 00:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Shoplet
We object to the removal of Shoplet. Please note all informatoin submitted were verifiable. Why is Shoplet treated differently than WB MASON? (Both are similarly situated copmanies. Please advise how I can immediately get Shoplet wiki reinstated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nymonsoon (talk • contribs) 18:25, 15 August 2007
 * Hello, there. From reading both articles, I think that an organisation of the age, extent and repute of WB Mason is very different to a successful internet trader of the last decade or so. For example, Shoplet does not appear to supply to major baseball teams across the States and all kinds of other things. Reading the article, it struck me as being in some significant part written to talk about the company for it's own sake in the style of a 'newsletter' or 'brochure' almost. This is too close to advertising in the article, and so it was deleted. Additionally, I do not think the company is likely to pass the inclusion tests set out in this document. Splash - tk 21:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Surviving the burst of the internet bubble and prospering on-line for over 13 years has an “X Factor” like dog years and places Shoplet on equal, if not, better footing for longevity in its business sector. While WB Mason may service a few Major League Baseball teams, it does not service the public sector. Shoplet is the holder of 5 Federal GSA Contracts GS-35F-0736P (70 Information Technology); GS-07F-0091T (84 Surveillance Systems); GS-02F-0141P (75 Office Products); GS-07F-5601R (73 Cleaning & Maintenance Products); and GS-28F-0015T (71 Furniture)), and services various State and public institutions throughout the entire United States. In addition, Shoplet is the only pure play standing e-tailer in office product industry since 1994 and according to published articles has been experiencing triple digit growth year over year and is expected to approach $100 million in revenue this year.  Many of the referenced articles suggest that Shoplet is the ultimate on-line success story, and was the catalyst to for the change the industry currently experiencing.  If WB Mason is worth mentioning along with many other doc.coms that actually made it (examples: Buy.com, drugstore.com, AbeBooks, eBuyer) -- so is Shoplet. Every industry deserves to have a darling and a hero. Shoplet is the one for office products category. That being said, and if your concern is that the article was too much like a “brochure,” please suggest a more limited scope presentation that would comply. Shoplet truly is an innovative business enterprise that exemplifies the future of an industry.

We await your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nymonsoon (talk • contribs) 17:25, 16 August 2007
 * Following your further information, I have temporarily restored the article and nominated it for discussion as part of the Articles for deletion process. The procedure lasts for about five days. To have the article survive, you will need to work closely with the advice in WP:CORP, WP:RS and WP:V. If the article still sounds like an advertisement during that process, it will be deleted. You also have very clear conflict of interest issues in this article, and that will also make your case the harder, so do study that document also. Finally, bear in mind that it is exceptionally unlikely that Shoplet is the "ultimate online success story" and that there is no given right to an article in the encyclopedia. Splash - tk 21:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Gardner
It's a shame past achievements don't count

http://www.oric.org/index.php?page=software&fille=detail&letter=&num_log=1284 http://www.oric.org/index.php?page=software&fille=detail&letter=&num_log=445

I suppose the creator of the Cube engine warrants a page because he's a professor? I've dedicated years of my life to freeware and open source games but I don't get a chance to have a page of my own, just speedy deletion. Thanks guys.....
 * The page was redirect to the engine of note. It was not deleted. Try clicking on the page - you will find you are bounced automatically to Retribution Engine. Along the way, you might also consider the advice in WP:AUTO. Splash - tk 21:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin conflict
No problem, as this is one the most valid uses of IAR. Coming to it, I agree with you. Maxim 22:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about Image:8PSK_Gray_Coded.svg
Hi, I'm currently learning about modulation for a project I'm working on. I was wondering, is there a reason your image here doesn't use binary reflected gray coding? I understand that it's still a gray code and works either way, I was just wondering if there was a special reason you used this alternate form as I'm trying to learn as much about common usage as possible. Feel free to reply here or there. Thanks! -Weston.pace 18:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. Splash - tk 20:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

About the article on Tudiabetes.com
Dear Splash, I'm writing you to ask about the deletion of TuDiabetes.com

I don't know the reasons for the deletion of the article. I believe the content was written in a neutral point of view. I used the format as other social networks such as [myspace] and [facebook]. Although, not as famous, TuDiabetes.com has become a credible source of support for people affected with diabetes around the world.

As an example, just yesterday, TuDiabetes.com was mentioned in the LA Times, the largest newspaper in Los Angeles as part of an article about Marc Andreessen. Here's the link to the article: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wonderboy13aug13,0,3851733.story?page=2&coll=la-home-business (the mention is in the second page)

If there's something that I did wrong, I respectfully ask you to indicate me what can I do to get the page up in Wikipedia again.

Thank you very much,

Luis Garcia
 * Hello, there, and I'm sorry for a slightly bumpy introduction to Wikipedia. I have reviewed the contents of the deleted article, and I do agree with you that it was written reasonably (though not completely) neutrally. However, the actual reason for the deletion was that it does not, in my opinion, pass the 'notability' thresholds for web-content - see this document for the full deal (it is extremely unlikely that any website founded so recently could do). As Wikipedia gets so very many website entries - there are billions of them, after all! - we simply delete those that, in the opinion of an administrator, stand no chance of passing the tests at the above link at the present time. Please don't take offence, and please do note the introductory paragraph to that document for the encyclopedic reasons behind that thinking. I hope you can see now the different views of a site like, say, Facebook or Myspace, and tudiabetes.com, without in any way wishing to denigrate the work you do. Further to this, we have found it to be a generally good assumption that if a person, organisation, etc. is genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about that sooner or later and some good general advice in that regard can be found here. Regards, Splash - tk 20:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank your the prompt reply. While I don't pretend to dispute the historical value of TuDiabetes.com versus that of MySpace or Facebook. And while I understand that Wikipedia gets billions of submissions every day, I wanted to make two points: First, as the article about Mr. Andreessen mentions, there are 86,000 social networks at Ning. The fact that only TuDiabetes.com was mentioned by name by someone of the stature of Marc Andreessen, in my point of view, makes TuDiabetes.com special. Second, I am not the founder of TuDiabetes.com. I am, like you, a volunteer. Therefore, to that extent, I am someone else creating the article about something I believe is notable. Of course, I do mention myself in the article and it was as a way to demonstrate that this isn't just about someone creating a social network, but rather, it is special enough for a non-diabetic to volunteer time for the cause. If you think this is self promotion, I have no problem taking out the references to myself. Splash, I have nothing but respect for the work that you do. If you still believe we cannot stand the test, I will respect your decision and wait until the time is right. Just wanted to make those two points :) Thank you!


 * To take the second point first: I wasn't sure what your role in the site is, so please accept my apologies if referring you to WP:AUTO made it look like I was implying self-promotion. I was more interested in setting out why it's best to steer clear of topics with emotional investment implications in general. On the first point: it is certainly good news for TuDiabetes.com to have been noticed and mentioned (good tag line, by the way!), but it is more-or-less exactly the kind of passing mention that WP:WEB sets out as insufficient to establish - and this is the key in this case - standalone notability.
 * However, there is an alternative open to you. If you like, I can restore the article and nominate it to the Articles for deletion process. This involves other editors and asks them over the course of about 5 days whether they think the article should be deleted or kept. At the conclusion, an admin (not me, I'd leave it to a third party) reads the debate and takes the relevant action. I've been involved in a large number of such debates, editorially and administratively, and the debate will rely very heavily on the advice at WP:WEB. Based on experience, I am certain that the outcome would be deletion. I would therefore say that the time you would spend on the process would be unlikely to give the result that would make it worthwhile. For those reasons, I would suggest that TuDiabetes.com return at some later date, but you have the option of exploring the avenue now if you wish. Let me know.
 * On a brighter note, I wonder if, now you've started, you can be persuaded to look at dipping into other articles that are of interest to you? I'm sure the articles on digital media could use a hand. Splash - tk 20:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Splash, thank you so much for your candid response and advice. It is not my intention to waste anyone's time. So if based on your experience, appealing will end up in deletion anyway, I will not pursue that avenue. I'd rather wait for a later time when the site would stand the test.
 * On the suggestion to take a look at digital media articles, let me just say first that I'm flattered. Unfortunately, volunteering to one project on top of my "day job" and family responsibilities is all I can handle for now. Again, thank you for the proposal. I wish you the best, and if you don't get this enough, let me say that you do a great job at this. Have a great day!

Copyvio
Hey Splash, would you mind blanking the history of Donna Murphy and Emotionally Focused Therapy that is copyvio. Cheers—Cronholm144 21:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Intermediate revisions are generally retained absent an external request that they be removed (they sometimes come in handy for our own purposes eg identifying a serial copyvio-ing editor). See for example the instruction boxes at the top of WP:CP.
 * As an aside, can I remind that checking for any existing non-vio revision is an important part of the process before adding the tag. Splash - tk 21:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood—Cronholm144 22:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Was A7 not appropriate for breakthroughing?—Cronholm144 23:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was an article about a protologism associated with the group (and really it's talking about a TV program or something, not actually a group), not actually about the group. A7 doesn't deal with proto/neo-logisms. I contemplated a "no context" speedy, but it just about rises above the level of "X is Y", as it specifically contextualises it to American Gladiators. Splash - tk 08:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Bangin' On Wax 2... The Saga Continues
This article should be deleted. Please see this.--Tasco 0 22:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That deletion was unnecessary. Redirects are handy, lightweight and no harm, particularly when they offer a different capitalization of a tricky title. Splash - tk 22:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And don't revert it again. Thank you. Splash - tk 22:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why you think a redirect it's handy when all the articles that used to linked to it, are now corrected? --Tasco 0 22:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because if someone types that capitalization into the search box, it'll get picked up on the redirect. If the redirect from the alternative capitals were not there, they'd get a search-engine page instead. Also, it's possible (even quite likely in this case) that someone will link to that capitalisation in future, and find a pleasant blue link rather than a red link. In general, redirects resulting from moves are retained for this kind of reason. Splash - tk 22:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why someone would link to this non-linked capitalized article? I still think it should be deleted.--Tasco 0 22:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They might be writing an associated article, and just try typing in the fully-caps name. It'd just save them a little trouble. Redirects are really nothing to worry about, seriously. You're doing good work, clearly, so don't worry about the little bits. Splash - tk 22:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do understand whay you are saying, but it's just what I think how it should be. Why you said that I'm doing a good work? Working on what?--Tasco 0 22:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I just meant that I can see from your userpage and contributions list that you do good stuff for Wikipedia, that asking for this/these deletion is part of that, and I'm not trying to get in the way of you in general. Splash - tk 22:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it's the first time I get a recognition of my work on Wikipedia. About the article, I just nominated it for deletion to make it "democratic".--Tasco 0 23:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Workadded
User:Workadded had been previously blocked for edit warring and 3RR. He's unblocked and is making the very same edits again. He's been given a test4im warning and has not listened. -WarthogDemon 22:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The images are important...The images are releated to the article. The japanese poster shows the difference with the american poster, and the pikachu the movie logo show the changes throughout each movie, the logo for the third movie has the release date for japan ex: Pikachu the Movie 2000, and the fourth logo has 2001 the year the fourth movie was released, and the fifth one has Pikachu the Movie 5th which is the fifth movie, and the tenth movie has Pikachu the Movie 10th which is the tenth movie. These users aren't listening to me when i try to tell them the reasons for keeping the images.


 * I don't see why this is a problem... Splash - tk 22:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest I'm not sure either. All I know is that he does this without discussion. I'm not even a part of this edit war; I've been observing from the sidelines. -WarthogDemon 22:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well, I can't really do much on that basis and certainly not discussing isn't likely to get a block.


 * Workadded, what's going on? Splash - tk 22:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You can ask the blocking admin User:Wimt or User:Golbez who ended up protecting the pages. -WarthogDemon 22:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As there are already a pair of good admins involved, they can probably be left to deal with it, I'd guess. I'd only get in the way. Splash - tk 22:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have bugged you then. Hopefully this'll get settled quickly. Anyways, cheers and happy editing. :) -WarthogDemon 22:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The noob
My thanks for converting the speedy to an AFD recommendation. Timmccloud 23:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Sundown and/or Last Stand
Greeting Splash

I am disputing the deletion of the submission for Sundown and/or Last Stand...I thought I had five days to show the significance of the band. I would have appreciated actual criticism in the talk page rather than straight deletion. Unfamiliarity with something is not proof of its insignificance.


 * I was writing the article as a set of pieces on the Darebin community which has the largest writer/musician/artist concentration in Victoria and is of cultural significance in this country.
 * This band specifically is significant because the musician works through a process used by a very limited ammount of people throughout the world (the technicalities being too complicated for me to describe without the aid of the musician who i am attempting to get these details from, thus this information was not yet on the wiki).
 * The political standpoint of the musician and associated groups and fanbase, especially in regards to the arts is also of significance in this community....
 * I feel it is really important to document the progression of the darebin community which I am lucky enough to be a part of. I want people from around the world to have an understanding of the art scene in this state.

anyway, long enough rant do you think, i hope i haven't been a bitch i am just putting a lot of work and time into this and its frustrating to get such a response. thanks for your time Sevenmish 01:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sundown and/or Last Stand. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sevenmish 02:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Another noob
Hello Splash..

Just wanted to touch base concerning the AfD discussion for Allen Sangree. I wanted to make sure that I was taking the correct steps in trying to update the article to meet the proper requirements.

Thanks in advance CheyenneWills 19:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello there. Yes, I think you are doing the right kind of things. I would suggest an approach more based on writing prose than collecting bullet points of information, but I realise these things take time. The discussion on the article will last for about 5 days. Also, to explain, I listed the article on Articles for deletion as someone had marked it as needing deleting on the spot since it was about a person who was not at all 'notable'. (Wikipedia gets many articles like that every day, from bored schoolkids and the like). Anyway, I thought there was enough material in the article to save it from summary deletion, but wanted other people also to get a chance to take a look. Thus the listing. Good luck, and keep up the good work. Splash - tk 21:19, 15 August 2007
 * I kind of figured as much. Also I understand about more having more prose, but at the moment I am just trying to pull in the references first (just they way that I think -- kind of start with the outline first then flesh in the details). Again thanks CheyenneWills 00:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A Woman's Place (Blue Heelers episode)
You redirected the above today. There are a number of articles arising out of the series, Blue Heelers an example of which would be Marissa Craddock. I'm thinking they should all be redirects. Could you take a look and comment? Thanks in advance. --Stormbay 22:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is one of those matters of opinion. I'd think that such short articles about actors/characters that are not notable outside the series should be merged+redirected to somewhere central. Possibly the main article, or possibly a few spin-off articles e.g. Characters in Blue Heelers, or something like that. They could go into the main article if that would not overburden it, or into aggregating articles if you think they would. Similarly for the episode summaries, personally I don't think they each need their own article, though some would disagree with that. Splash - tk 22:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the main article is too large already so will look at the other! --Stormbay 23:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN
Your fourth point strikes me as rather unfair. I don't see any indication that Thatcher is (or thinks he is) acting in any official capacity; certainly no one ever asked him to. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this is the fifth arbitration request he has filed in 9 months; that's probably more than any other ordinarily non-litigious editor. The somewhat perfunctory manner of this filing (see WP:AN, where there are a total of three words of comment including a bolded action of filing) finally caused me concern that, possibly accidentally, there is a sense in which 'looking after arbitration' is drifting into making sure the committee hears about everything Thatcher thinks it might want to. And yes, it matters who brings things to the committee - since the committee should have no bulldogs, the requests need to arise indigenously from the disputants and the disputes they examine. Much like the Mediators do not routinely haul people before the committee, leaving that to the dissatisfied mediatees. Otherwise, we have people acting as a kind of Crown Prosecution Service, and that will bode ill; especially if the members of that Service are already in the 'pay' of the committee. Splash - tk 12:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fairview, Erie County, Pennsylvania
Could you please undelete this article? I un-copyrighted it. It was nominated for speedy during one of my short wikivacations and I would have contested it if I were there. Please respond. &#39;&#39;&#91;&#91;User:Kitia&#124;Kitia&#39;&#39;]] 17:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext
Way better - thanks for that :) - A l is o n  ☺ 23:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * :) Splash - tk 22:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/BJAODN
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: 0RR

 * Re: User talk:Black Falcon

Thank you. I don't usually comment at Wikipedia:Requests for pontification but I suppose that the prospect of having to obtain permission for every reversal of an administrative action stirred my inner muse. ;-) Black Falcon (Talk) 17:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A very British mess
Should A very British mess be deleted/merged/moved somewhere? Seems out of place all by itself; doesn't seem very notable unless it can be moved to a bigger article... -WarthogDemon 21:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge it to UK Metric Association, I guess. Splash - tk 21:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, sorry if I didn't do exactly what you suggested. You seemed unsure, so I thought it best to open it up for discussion rather than merge myself. Sorry for the miscommunication. -WarthogDemon 21:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I could've just done it when I looked the first time! No need to be worried about merging such a small article back to its 'parent'; that's what BOLD is all about, after all. Splash - tk 21:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood, sorry for bothering you. Cheers and peace. -WarthogDemon 21:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Xeequa
Hey there.

Might want to salt the page too; CSBot picked it up three times today alone as a cut-and-paste of the website itself (thus copyvio as well as spammy). &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Already done. :) Splash - tk 22:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I'm new editing things here. Sorry If I made a mistake but found competitor LinkedIn and thought it may be appropriate to put up some content on Xeequa too. Need to learn why LinkindIn is OK here and Xeequa not - Thanks for advice Axel Hello, there. The reason for one of the recent deletions was that the article then included a lot of material from the website itself, which is copyrighted and therefore cannot legally be copy-and-pasted in Wikipedia. The other main reason is that the website does not appear to have any claim to notability - see this document for the details on that. On reading that document, I hope you can see the difference between Xeequa and your example of LinkedIn. I'm sorry you've had a bumpy start to Wikipedia. Splash - tk 22:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Good edit
Good edit, by the way. Thanks. -- Cyde Weys 23:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Splash - tk 23:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yiffstar
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Yiffstar. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

re:Timezones
Hello there, thanks for the message. I understand that it generally takes 5 days for an AfD to run its full course. Having said that, I don't think it's a problem to close the AfD in question (and the other AfDs I closed yesterday for that matter) some hours early, since the results were unambiguous. It's just as fine as administrators can speedy close snowed AfDs. In the case of less clear-cut debates, please rest assured that I give the AfDs careful consideration and the appropriate time to meet their needs. Best regards, PeaceNT 02:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Invoking SNOW in terms is almost always a bad idea. But I'm glad you'd give other AfDs the time it takes to do things properly. Splash - tk 15:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:PresidentCevdetSunay.jpg
Hello Splash. Tell me, what is the correct license of the above image? Gridge 13:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't know for sure, as there is no source included on the image which is liable to get it deleted pretty quickly if that's not fixed. Finding a source would help work out if it is in fact a public-domain image or not. In the meantime, I would think that the first of the two fair use tags, along with the rationale will do in the absence of a better fix on things. The remaining tags ought to be removed. Splash - tk 15:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:UlrichMuhe.jpg
Hi, thanks for getting back to me. Someone posted a message on "Talk:Ulrich Mühe" that there was a GFDL-licensed image of German actor Ulrich Mühe in the article "Ulrich Mühe". This image was called "de:Bild:Mühe1.jpg", and I tried to do a search for it on the Commons but it doesn't exist there. At first I thought it wasn't possible to directly refer to images in Wikipedias of other languages, which is why I uploaded the image into the English Wikipedia, but then another editor simply updated the infobox in "Ulrich Mühe" with "Mühe1.jpg" in the appropriate field and the image appeared. So it looks like it is possible to do so after all, and Image:UlrichMuhe.jpg is redundant. Cheers, Jacklee 06:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact, Image:Mühe1.jpg has been uploaded to the English Wikipedia also, and so that is where the image is coming from. Still, the image you originally tagged is an identical duplicate of that, so I'll go and delete it now. Splash - tk 09:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. Didn't realize that was the case. Thanks! Cheers, Jacklee 09:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sd-copyvio
Hi, I disagree with some of the changes you made in this template. The reason why it has some advices on "use your own words" and the "the article also needs to have an encyclopedic tone". are the numerous complaints I received when I started tagging articles for copyright violations. Some people just don't get that they can't copy paste content freely, and need to rewrite it. And some others did rewrite the article, just to have it deleted under an other speedy criteria because it was an unsalvageable mess. For the other parts, the hangon section explained to them how to contest the deletion (articles where there is a claim of ownership can't be G12ed). The wording of the 1st paragraph was chosen after consensus at WP:UW, because repeatedly uploading copyrighted material is a reason for a block (see uw-copyright). I don't want to revert right ahead for I don't want to look like WP:OWNing it, and I think that the template is far from perfect ;). What do you think? -- lucasbfr talk 09:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Most importantly, warnings in bold about being blocked have no place on possibly the first message that a new user sees. There is no need for threats so soon. They can be told of that if they persist in creating copyright infringing articles.
 * The key reason I have slimmed the text down is that when dumped on some poor editor's talk page, it was just an ugly mass of threat, instruction, italics, bold, colours, images, links, numbers and internal jargon. It is not acceptable for that to be Wikipedia's first interaction with a new(ish) user as it stood. Remember that people do not read huge lists of instructions - they only read the minimum they need to get past the current hurdle; following this, the template needs only to provide those pieces of information. Further notes can be left if the user needs more guidance or help.
 * The use of hangon is just adding another rule they must follow - if the talk page link is blue, as it will be if they have followed any of the options about owning the rights - then it is incumbent upon both the tagger and the admin to study the talk page. No need for more instruction creep about additional tags on articles.
 * And similarly for the "how to write" advice. They can be told that later if they get it wrong, and the template as it stands says very clearly that they must use their own original words.
 * I would strongly suggest that, instead of dumping an overreaching impersonal message to these users, that they be given a standard welcome and a quick, handwritten note that they mustn't upload stuff they don't own. Later, if they get confused or are persistent, then stronger medicine may be in order.

Splash - tk 12:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request
I am splash_wp on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Splash. Thanks. --Splash - tk 22:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Template_talk:Unreferenced#Couple_of_improvements
A couple of comments about the date change are here Template_talk:Unreferenced take a look, maybe make a change? Jeepday (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism or not
Hi, I am james who was working on a spatial processing reserach area including smart antenna, MIMO and beyond for more than 13 years as an associated internatioal member. I totally agree that my contributions including multiple antenna and intelligent antenna need to be refined or partly getting rid out. However, a sudden removal can give a bit confusion to Wikipedians. So, for the smooth transition, could you clarify the following questions?
 * Is multiple antenna equivalent to MIMO?
 * As known, MIMO is a special case of multiple antenna techniques. For example, how can we explain TxAA and STTD type-multiple transmit antenna schemes adopted in 3GPP W-CDMA by MIMO concept. If Wikipedians really want to merge, why don't we redirect MIMO to multiple antenna research and let MIMO be a sub section of it.
 * Is intelligent antenna equivalent to Smart antenna?
 * As shown Lucent's description in the previous multiple antenna research page, Lucent use the terminology of intelligent antenna to represent a combined method of smart antenna and MIMO. Note that smart antenna has been used to represent phased array based approach (not MIMO). It is agreeable to use the terminology of Smart antenna as an extended meaning for a special purpose in somewhere (not yet in Wikipedia). However, to my investigation, nobody has been used the terminology of smart antenna as more than phased array. So, intelligent antenna was edited in Wikipedia, in order not to make Wikipedians be confused (i.e., not to use the same terminology as too wide meaning). JSK 02:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And to answer the question in the title of the section on my talk page: no, it was not vandalism, which has a very particular meaning on Wikipedia and which should only be used with great care. (Spalsh talk in User talk:Jamessungjin.kim)
 * It should have been more care to use the terminology of vandalism before. Note that one of very famous researchers in a wireless field said that he can not fully involove to Wikipedia since his contributions are easily and quickly removed although he is highly expert in his area. Of cause, his intention to contribute is surely based on a good mind but his contributions has been removed suddenly since he is not familiar with how to use Wikipedia. So, now it is required to improve the overall quality of wikipedia that we endure and help such a new member at Wikipedia but advancced researches in his area, although his initial contribution is not very enough. JSK 15:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Refimprove
Looks like you accidentally removed the date when you were trying to move it. Diff. Jeepday (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was an accident, sorry about that. However, please find an admin who actually wants the date on the template to re-add it. In this case, for efficiency's sake, some better arrangement than having such a tiny piece of information wrap onto a whole new line should be found. Splash - tk 00:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jonathan Evans (spymaster).jpg
BetacommandBot 03:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope my amendments placate the lines of code that dumped the above here; they happen to have misfired however. Splash - tk 22:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair use hardasses would argue that this is not enough. The party line is that any not completely free image requires a fair use rationale as if it were a completely unfree image, e.g. it's forbidden to say "this image is okay here because non-commercial use is explicitly allowed and we're non-commercial" or what have you - you're always supposed to write a "proper" fair use rationale instead. That fair use rationale can, on the other hand, rely on the fact that Wikipedia is non-commercial. Haukur 23:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I'll delete it, then. Can't be bothered playing cat-and-mouse over it. Splash - tk 00:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment
Because of concerns over how I acted in semi-protecting the William Shakespeare article, I have opened a discussion on my use of my admin powers at User_talk:Alabamaboy. Based on how the comments go, I am prepared to give up my admin powers or accept other sanctions. I hope you will comment since you already voiced your opinion at ANI.--Alabamaboy 01:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Question re: Vortex (Atlanta)
I'm not involved personally or commercially with the Vortex in Atlanta; however, I did notice that you deleted it as non-notable. I created the article originally as a stub and never went back-- my bad for not responding to your proposed deletion. The bar is an Atlanta institution, known for its loud architecture (the Little Five Points location is a prominent landmark pictured in the wikipedia article for the area). I certainly think it's notable, but I'd like some guidance on how to ensure I don't end up writing an advertisement for the place or something else that's policy-unfriendly before I start.

Wellspring 20:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Wellspring. The article as deleted was a two-sentence stub that said that Vortex was a restaurant in Little Five Point. That's insufficient for an article mainly because it made no attempt to indicate why such a thing should appear in an encyclopedia. I think probably the most applicable of the 'notability' policies would be WP:CORP. However, I suspect that Vortex is going fail the tests described there, and probably notability tests described elsewhere, too. I would suggest the best thing to do is add a few sentences to Little Five Points talking about it - I note that an image of the place is already there. That way, the information will be in its proper context and not have to pass the same kind of scrutiny that an individual article is likely to be subjected to. I hope that helps. Splash - tk 12:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It does, thanks so much!


 * Wellspring 18:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You say I am causing "disruption"
I am not responsible for others choosing to overreact to my perfectly legitimate actions. If there is any disruption, then, those individuals are responsible for it. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 14:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Chicken and egg, but only partly. Actions that cause disruption are not 'legitimate'. People overreacting only occurs because you give them something to overreact to. If you stopped, they would stop. If they stopped, I am quite sure you would carry on. I conclude then that you will not stop of your own accord. Splash - tk 19:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I think you fail to grasp the purpose of ArbCom. It is not a place to go to appeal a community consensus that you do not like; rather, it is a place to try and get a community consensus enforced if an individual is refusing to abide by it. If there is a community consensus and everyone is abiding by it but you don't like it, well, tough for you. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 14:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a community consensus that you are wasting peoples' time on RfA, and it is abundantly clear that lately that has spiralled to a nonchalant enjoyment of the surrounding frisson you are at the centre of. There is some confusion over whether you should be allowed to persist in this in the name of enshrining your 'right' to say as you please on RfA. That right exists on Wikipedia only so far as it does not cause disruption to any part of the project. Arbitration is a means to stop those that cannot, or will not, stop themselves from so disrupting. That is what arbitration is for. Splash - tk 19:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually laughed at this: ''On the much-vaunted RfC. Please, everyone, get over it. It's just people wanting to say holy things about RfA, openness, freedom, blah and blah. It isn't useful. esepcailly the blah and blah''. It reminds me of the comment that you made that i awarded a barnstar for (something regarding Kelly Martin and Cyde). hbdragon88 22:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * :) well, RfA being the pulpit of consensus encourages too many sermons. Yeah, where'd that barnstar go? Will have to hunt for it. Splash - tk 22:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here it is hbdragon88 22:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've added it to its rightful place. Don't know how it got buried in the first place! Splash - tk 14:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki
I don't understand what's not practical about the current transwiki scheme. All you have to do is ask an admin on the other end to import and wait until then to delete the content (if required). If import fails, the extra work is done on the other end, not at enwiki. So.... what? I don't get it.

PS. Transwiki complete; delete away. – Mike . lifeguard  &#124; @en.wb 22:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe it's just I'm not really used to it (since importing is unavailable to all on enwiki). My main complaint was that Wikibooks' preferred method meant that I couldn't complete the process of wanting to delete an article; I could only leave it for later in a part of enwiki's deletion processes that gets about as much attention as the back-left corner of the bathroom cabinet. Clearly, however, Wikibooks has a more efficient transwiki system than enwiki. Also, I only discovered the preferred procedure by a round-about route: I was noting that I had also transwiki'd b:Transwiki:Fictional portrayals of psychopaths in film, and only once I got to Transwiki log/Articles moved from here/en.wikibooks did I find the new instructions. Wikibooks should consider mentioning their preferred method at b:Wikibooks:Transwiki log/Articles moved to here. On that note, perhaps you'd do an import of that other article too. Pity that the import process actually failed after all. Splash - tk 22:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it fails for revision counts above ~1K. I don't know why, and I don't know if the devs know why. I have tried in the (recent) past to notify enwiki admins that we have import enabled, and to tell us when imports are required (ie before deletion) but there seems to be no central place to do so. I will add a notice there. If you temp restore that other one, we can see if import will work for it (though I doubt it). – Mike . lifeguard  &#124; @en.wb 23:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki reports that "...in literature" had only 562 edits. Otoh, "...in film" has 2629. Nah, if you reckon it'll fail there's no point in the to-and-fro. Maybe maintain somewhere on the destination wiki a list of "currently unsuccessful imports" for later re-visiting if/when the devs fix the problem. Mmmm...somewhere central; I'll try adding a note to Articles for deletion/Old/Transwiki, see if that helps any. Splash - tk 23:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's by amount of data (more or less - just looked on bugzilla). We keep a list on en.wb; no need to duplicate. – Mike . lifeguard  &#124; @en.wb 23:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

RuneScape unprotection
An FYI, this page will be protected within 24 hours for heavy vandalism. That has happened every other time the page was unprotected. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a very negative approach to take. I maintain that applying what amounts to indefinite semi-protection to this article is in direct contravention of protection policy. RuneScape is no George W. Bush. Splash - tk 21:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * However negative it may be, it still is reality. Once the page is unprotected, this article gets more vandalism than TFAs. Trust me, I've dealt with this article on a number of occasions, and I've seen firsthand how fast the vandals come to this page. I'm not a fan of long-term protection, but I'm just telling you what has happened in the past. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please take another look at Bolt Risk
I hadn't noticed how old the deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Bolt Risk was when I looked at it and started doing some research. By the time I hit the "save page" button, the article was already gone. I believe the new information answers the objections in the discussion about notability (WP:BK) with multiple, independent, nontrivial sources, or it at least deserves a relisting. Please reconsider the decision to close. Here's what I was going to add to the "Reviews" section (glad I copied it):


 * Publishers Weekly wrrote that "Wood's debut features plenty of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll...Welcomed as voyeurs, readers are given an insider's look into the subculture created by the smart and talented who arrive in L.A. with big dreams and wind up with big addictions. [It] speaks to aliened teenagers, world-weary hipsters and cynical survivors of all types." The review criticized the author's "sometimes awkward prose."


 * The Washington Post called the book, "As bracing as a shot of rotgut whiskey, the brutal, unflinching prose is a tonic for the chick-lit weary." Tom Gogola, reviewing the book in the New Haven Advocate, wrote, that "it kills chick lit dead" as a "literate, visceral, foul-mouthed bildungsroman".


 * According to a review in Booklist, "The narrator's profound detachment [...] quickly wears thin, and some hints at the narrator's inner life (flashbacks to her abusive father, for example) feel disjointed and purposeful. Still, some readers may be attracted by the vicarious, soft-porn tour through L.A. nightlife," and the book has "sparks of authenticity."


 * Kirkus Reviews praised the book for its "hypnotically spare", "bracingly frank" and at times "admirably sharp" prose as well as the "controlled, deliberately jagged" and "frenetic" pace of the narrative, but said the "stylized smartness" of the narrator sometimes gets intrusive.


 * "Bolt Risk reads like a memoir, but without the reflection", wrote Brian Leingang in a review at NewPages.com. He also praised the book for its fast pacing, with "the intensity, brevity and depth of a rock song. It’s gritty, blunt and fun. [...]

The goal of Ann Wood’s novel is to tell a cool story [...] It’s a story that will pull you in, chew you up and spit you out, leaving you feeling used and degraded, but grateful for the experience."

Cheers, Noroton 21:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Noroton. Thanks for the info. Whilst I'm not certain that the information would completely sway people to keeping the article (tho' I could be wrong), I do know that had you noted your would-be additions before I had closed the AfD I would not have closed it as a delete on the spot. It is a tricky situation, because the article was pretty bad, including as it did a promo-bio of the author. I think the fairest thing for me to do is to restore the article, and re-list the AfD on today's list in its state before I closed it. I will note what has happened on the AfD, ask you please to write something there too, after you have edited the article, and I will drop a note to the nominator. Is that OK? Splash - tk 21:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your plan is perfect. I agree that the article needs more work, and I'll do a bit more on it, and comment in the relisted AFD. Thanks, Noroton 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging
Regarding Stella Ferner, Victoria Ribeiro, Alexander Ferner, Columbus Taylor, Estella Taylor and Eloise Taylor, may I redirect them? Should I leave the merge tag on the talk page? Charles 21:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I had accidentally unwatched the afd page and see the note. Charles 21:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Merge tags are usually put on the face of the article, but only up until it is merged. Nothing is usually placed on the talk page about it, apart from perhaps a new section noting what has been merged in to the destination article. Splash - tk 22:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The content of these pages has not been merged. All that has been done are redirects. The information which was formerly on the pages for Alexander Ferner and Stella Ferner (for example) has not been transferred to Princess Astrid of Norway (which hasn't been edited since November 6). Nor was the information which was formerly on those pages already on Princess Astrid's page. In fact there is no mention whatsoever of Stella Ferner on Princess Astrid's page. This does not seem to be in conformity with the Afd decision. Noel S McFerran 22:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm sorry... I'll get on that right now to pacify you, Noel. Charles 22:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a note, Stella Ferner falls wholly out of the realm of mention here. It is not standard to list the grandchildren, etc, of a princess. At most, I've only seen grandchildren listed if descended from a sovereign in the male line, such as William II, German Emperor and Charles I of Austria (all being members of the same family in the male line). I will check over the children as I am sure now, since Mr McFerran has kindly reminded me as he always seems to do, that I missed info on Alexander. I will not be merging information on Stella though for reasons I have just stated. If you see a fault Noel, please do not pass it. Charles 22:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Vital information which composed the articles is present in the parents articles. Charles 22:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Choo Choo (Top Cat character)
Please make sure you spell #REDIRECT correctly, otherwise the syntax will not work. Thanks, — Swpbtalk.edits 23:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Your candidate question
Hi. I just wanted to make sure you saw that I answered, in some detail, the question you placed on my ArbCom candidate page. I hope you find this responsive to your concern. Regards, Newyorkbrad 11:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Iksar: Delete? Really?
Articles for deletion/Iksar - You concluded that the consensus was to delete... and yet there were more people suggesting that it be merged... I'll go ahead and restore a redirect. I don't know if there was anything at the original article worth retrieving, but it would be nice to think that we're not losing some of that information. -Harmil 15:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This was a rather unsatisfactory AfD debate. It's not adequate to say, as all the mergers did, "merge to an article, even though the one we are recommending does not, and has not ever, existed". As a closing admin, there's no way I'm likely to create a new article on the back of an AfD where none of the people who wanted the new article (which could exist independently of the deletion of this one) actually went and made it! Given that lack of actual meaning to the 'merge' suggestions, it doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude that the article is only wanted as cruft-collecting without intent to address the problems raised by the deleters. I did not make a redirect to EverQuest because I inferred from the exchange beneath Phoenix-wiki's initial comment that other 'races' did not have anything on Wikipedia; that inference may not be correct. Anyway, I'm more than happy to fully restore the history behind a redirect upon request, and I will do so now. Splash - tk 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Dangerous Records
Hello, regarding the AfD for this article, I am concerned in the disambiguation page. This is becuase there was a record label with the same name operating in the U.S. I do not know how to address the disambiguation. Would you please give me a tip? Reply here, thank you.--Tasc0 23:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that label notable to Wikipedia standards? If it is, turn the redirect into a disambiguation page and include a piped link to the current target of the redirect with some appropriate description. If it is not (for example, if it is currently a redlink and would be likely to remain so), then leave the redirect be. Does that help? Splash - tk 02:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I do not know if it is notable, and no, that doesn't help. The record label I'm talking about (American) is hip hop-related, and it can be confusing to some users. That record label it's linked in various articles in Wikipedia. I already talked about that in the AfD.--Tasc0 04:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see two possibilities, and it'll have to be up to you which you follow:
 * The American label is notable. If so, turn the redirect into an article about that label, and de-link the British version if it is linked anywhere.
 * An alternative in this case is to turn the redirect into a dab page, and make (guessing here) Dangerous Records (hip-hop label). Re-link the current whatlinkshere to that new article and on the dab page link to it also and with a piped link to the current target of the (British) redirect.
 * The American label is not notable. If so, de-link it in articles where it is currently linked and leave the redirect as it is since it's harmless enough. There's no point making a dab page in this case for two non-notable labels but we need the redirect to preserve the history.
 * I can't decide for you which option to take, I'm afraid. But either of those two will fix the problem of the current links going to the wrong place. If you don't like any of those options, you could split the difference and re-link the current whatlinkshere to a red-link such as the title I suggesed above, and not actually write the article. That way, someone else will write it if they think it worthy. Splash - tk 15:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, where can I find what makes a record label notable? I guess peaking some charts, right?. By the way, the only information I could find was ||4387 this.--Tasc0 23:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmmm... tricky. Perhaps ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music (or WT:MUSIC) or WikiProject Music/Noticeboard, although the latter looks largely unreplied-to. I would think that is that is all that can be found, it would not pass most conceivable notability tests since these usually say something like "has been the subject of at least two reliable sources" or similar. For now, probably just de-link (or re-link) the current whatlinkshere to prevent it pointing to the wrong place. Splash - tk 00:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to de-link it from the articles. Even if the record label is notable, I couldn't find any information to create the article and if it gets created, it will be a small article with little content so will be deleted anyways.--Tasc0 01:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you mind?--Tasc0 04:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Poulin
All keeps but one delete s/b keep not no consensus. Chessy999 (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there was some sensible talk of redirecting or merging. It was also pointed out quite precisely that the article is highly duplicative of St. Pius X High School shooting to the extent that things look rather silly as they stand. Basically, the disposition of Robert Poulin, St. Pius X High School shooting and (previously) St. Pius X High School (Ottawa) as a set is not clearly determined from that debate, and all three were acting together during it. Thus 'no consensus' since it seems likely that something other than straight retention but less than straight deletion ought eventually to result. Splash - tk 00:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)