User talk:Stuartyeates/Archive 6

Department of Corrections
Hi Stuartyeates - I see the mediation didn't resolve the problems with the Correction's article. A pity because it looked so close. I noted that you and Offender9000 just got into a minor edit war and would like to suggest to you both that if a conflict over content breaks out could we put it into the Talk page for resolution with the wider community instead? A few tweeks to the wording can resolve most concerns on both sides. I am sure a few NZ editors would be happy to comment and provide appropriate balance. I have also suggested this approach to Offender9000 NealeFamily (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've unwatchlisted the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that, you give a balanced viewpoint. NealeFamily (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just so sick of the drama that the only sane response was to disengage. Other articles are infinitely more deserving of work. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Teahouse!
Hi Stuartyeates! Someone may have chatted with you already, but if not I wanted to stop by and say thanks for participating at the Teahouse, as your experience is so valuable for educating new editors about Wikipedia. We have a couple of easy guidelines for the editors who help at the Teahouse. This link to the "host lounge" will tell you about the mission behind the Hosts and what makes us different than other help spaces on Wikipedia - we say hi, we're friendly, and we're not chock full of jargon. I look forward to your continued participation. Thank you for all you do! heather walls (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse!
Hi Stuartyeates! I'm happy to see that you've been lending a hand at the Teahouse. Experienced editors helping out are so important to making the Teahouse special place that it has become.

I did want to let you know a little more about what makes the Teahouse different than other help spaces! I encourage you take a look at our hosts information page and our host tips. There, you'll learn more about the role of Teahouse hosts and the important things they do - specifically greet the new visitors (say hi! everyone loves a friendly face and a hello when they visit a new place - online or offline!), invite new editors to the Teahouse, and trying to be as friendly and warm as possible. These are some of the things that has made us special and successful at retaining new editors. Putting on that friendly face and letting them know we are here to help. Thank you again for your contributions at the Teahouse and on Wikipedia, I am so glad you are here! Sarah (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

St. Patrick's College, Silverstream
It is once again highly disappointing that you have deleted so much information from this article, on two levels: 1) it is not a subject with which you are an expert or have any knowledge about. It is tantamount to me deleting vast tracts of information from an article about particle physics, when I have not the slightest idea of the value or meaning of the content, and 2) Your deletions are highly indiscriminate, particularly in regards to the list of notable Old Boys. You said they were not referenced, but two of the ones you deleted were actually reference in Wikipedia itself, - Chris Parry, founder of Fiction Records, and Philip and Mark Cameron, co-founders of 'Booktrack'. You have kept some District Court judges, but deleted High Court judges. It just doesn't make sense. It's very disappointing, and you have no idea of the amount of research it took to compile the full list of notable Old Boys. It is also disappointing that the list of Old Boys who lost their lives in World War II was deleted. Silverstream is a special character school. Part of that character is the sacrifice made by it's past pupils. The list of war dead appears in every written history of the school, and so it should appear in an online article on the history of the school. It's not hurting anybody. it is simply a list of pupils. It is information and historical fact. I will ensure the record is set straight on these issues, and I will also ensure the list of Old Boys is complete and restored to its former glory Nepialegs (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See ALUMNI for who should be included. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Mu Canis Majoris
Meets notability guidelines. I refer you to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(astronomical_objects). It explicitly states: "1. The object is, or has been, visible to the naked eye. For ordinary stars, this includes any object with an HR catalogue identifier." Ergo, it meets the notability guidelines and should be kept.Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to do new page patrolling you should familiarize yourself with the notability guidelines. If you don't know what the notability guidelines are for astronomical objects, then you should ask first before nominating for deletion.Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied on the AfD page. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Whetu
Hello Stuart. I left a comment on Whetu's talk page. It was a privilege to hear her speak in 2010. Regards, Watts Russell 1991 no. 15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watts Russell 15 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Four
Hi! Welcome to the fourth issue of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter for the Teahouse!


 * Teahouse pilot wraps up after 13 weeks After being piloted on English Wikipedia starting in February, the Teahouse wrapped up its pilot period on May 27, 2012. We expect this is just the beginning for the Teahouse and hope the project will continue to grow in the months to come!

Thank you and congratulations to all of the community members who participated - and continue to participate!


 * What you've all been waiting for: Teahouse Pilot Report is released! We look forward to your feedback on the methodology and outcomes of this pilot project.
 * ....and if a pilot report wasn't enough, the Teahouse Pilot Metrics Report is out too! Dive into the numbers and survey results to learn about the impact the Teahouse has made on English Wikipedia.
 * Teahouse shows positive impact on new editor retention and engagement
 * 409 new editors participated during the entire pilot period, with about 40 new editors participating in the Teahouse per week.
 * Two weeks after participating, 33% of Teahouse guests are still active on Wikipedia, as opposed to 11% of a similar control group.
 * New editors who participated in the Teahouse edit 10x the number of articles, make 7x more global edits, and 2x as much of their content survives on Wikipedia compared to the control group.


 * Women participate in the Teahouse 28% of Teahouse participants were women, up from 9% of editors on Wikipedia in general, good news for this project which aimed to have impact on the gender gap too - but still lots to be done here!
 * New opportunities await for the Teahouse in phase two as the Teahouse team and Wikipedia community examine ways to improve, scale, and sustain the project. Opportunities for future work include:
 * Automating or semi-automating systems such as invites, metrics and archiving
 * Experimenting with more ways for new editors to discover the Teahouse
 * Building out the social and peer-to-peer aspects further, including exploring ways to make answering questions easier, creating more ways for new editors to help each other and for all participants to acknowledge each other's efforts
 * Growing volunteer capacity, continuing to transfer Teahouse administration tasks to volunteers whenever possible, and looking for new ways to make maintenance and participation easier for everyone.

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Want to know how you can lend a hand at the Teahouse? Become a host! Learn more about what makes the Teahouse different than other help spaces on Wikipedia and see how you can help new editors by visiting here.
 * Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is really encouraging to new Wikipedians.

DNZB
Hello Stuart, I see that the missionary Samuel Williams (1822–1907) has a DNZB entry, but I can't find him on WP. Have you overlooked that page? I'm asking because I was setting up a dab page for Samuel Williams.  Schwede 66  09:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * When creating the stubs I just took a list of names as they are in the DNZB and created stubs for all the red links. There are probably lots of blue links that weren't the person I was looking for. It's not so much I overlooked Samuel Williams, but was knowingly blind to whole classes of people. Sorry if I left you with a different impression. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. No need to apologise. You might well have stated your exact procedure and I just didn't see that. I'll set up the stub.  Schwede 66  20:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Joe Small
In January, you created an article on the entertainer Joe Small. I am currently working on another Joe Small, a cricketer currently at Joseph Small but who was known as Joe. I am considering renaming the cricketer as Joe Small (cricketer) and was wondering whether it is worth renaming the other Joe as Joe Small (entertainer) and creating a disambiguation page at Joe Small. Would you have any objections or suggestions? Sarastro1 (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a great idea, go for it. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Weavers
You may not have noticed yet, but there were also two non-Māori NZ weavers sitting in the main category, so I actually created just a few minutes ago for them and the Māori category. Generally, we do want to avoid double-categorizing of the category + subcategory type — if you believe that New Zealand Māori weaving warrants categorization as a distinct style of weaving in addition to categorizing them by nationality, then it would be better to create a distinct category for, which would contain the weavers category and any related articles (such as a head article on the style itself) and then file that in instead of. Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem I see is that with the new categories is that Category:New Zealand weavers seems to ghettoise people in a way expressly forbidden by Categorization/Gender,_race_and_sexuality. I may have to up-merge Category:New_Zealand_Māori_weavers and create a new Category:New Zealand Māori weaving as you suggest, but I'll have a think first to see whether there isn't another approach and maybe raise the issue on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_Zealand, where there is already a disusssion.

Bruce Hall (Australian National University)
How did Bruce Hall (Australian National University) get deleted? Could we have this put back please? It's not just a 'student hostel', it's a hall of residence. m.e. (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You can ask for it back at Requests for undeletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me about SEO Panel
its beyond 1 am at my place. Let me contribute to that discussion tomorrow. I'll clear up any doubts you may have. Have a nice day. by William Emmanual | Send me a Message 19:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Offender9000
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at    :Requests for comment/Offender9000. -- Stuartyeates (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of the Cause of concern section looks like it is incomplete. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Fixed (I hope). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have endorsed your concern. NealeFamily (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Contentious pages
Hi Stuart,

I see what you're getting at with the entry on Authority control integration proposal/FAQ - the bot shouldn't override local consensus on the content specific articles - but I'm not sure this is the most effective approach.

I am sure there will be many individual cases where adding authority control is contentious and gets challenged, but I think these won't be predictable from past "contentiousness" as measured by protection. Leaving aside vandalism cases, specific editing disputes that have escalated to protection are usually about editorial content rather than metadata, and there is (usually) broad agreement on the key issue of who the subject is, which is the only "informational content" the bot adds ;-)

Would you be happy with replacing this section with, say, a general comment about "editors of specific pages will in all cases be free to remove the metadata where it is inaccurate or felt to be editorially inappropriate"?

We can then include specific details about implementation in the bot proposal which will follow the RFC - perhaps something like:


 * For currently protected pages, the template will be placed on the associated talk page with explanatory text so editors working on the article can deal with it as appropriate. For articles where the editors working on it feel that the VIAF link is inaccurate or editorially inappropriate, it can be reverted; for the purposes of Sanctions, the first revert of a automated or semi-automated addition of authority control information shall not count as a revert and the bot shall be coded so as not to replace these links.
 * In cases where it is subsequently reverted by an editor, the bot shall make a note of this on a log page to track cases where the template is not to be used, for the benefit of any subsequent bot runs.

I'm not sure if we should also have it go back and add any reverted metadata to talk - I can see arguments both ways. Thoughts? Andrew Gray (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I decided to be bold and update the FAQ - hope this meets with your approval! I've also updated the multiple-users issue, and the RFC is now live. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Justin Bieber on Twitter for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Justin Bieber on Twitter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Justin Bieber on Twitter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Informing you of this nomination because of your previous participation in the Justin Bieber on Twitter merge into Justin Bieber discussion.--LauraHale (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Flavell Mp
Thanks for the help with refs for Jim/Hemi/Te Ururoa's name.1% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.190.90 (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Naming conventions
Hello Stuart, according to our naming conventions, buildings should be disambiguated (if a dab is needed) by city or town, not by '(New Zealand)'. Refer to item 4 in the list. Hence, your suggested War Memorial Hall (New Zealand) needs to state the city.  Schwede 66  18:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of the institution of building war memorial halls in NZ, rather than a specific one, sorry for the confusion. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

SEO Panel
Can you please tell me, the newly added secondary sources is enough to keep the article? Sendtogeo (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not in my opinion. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * If you've got reliable sources to back up those claims, you're welcome to add the claims to the article, but the referencing / sourcing had better be bullet-proof. Thanks for the barn star, too. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the wiki-kitty
That was very kind of you. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That RFCU again
Hi, have just had a quick look at the RFCU for Offender and it looks like it hasn't been "officially certified" yet - the instructions on it are a mass of bureaucratese but as far as I can tell the instructions are that you need to certify it as filing party (under "Users certifiying the basis for this dispute") as well as me as certifying party. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for help
Thanks for finding and adding the ref for the additional information on the Maori MP Te Ururoa (Hemi)Flavell.1% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.159.198 (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

CP item
You added "Run_and_you%27re_done"_law to CP, and I'm looking into it. I see a substantial overlap with the text of the state law, but I believe, that state laws are always public domain, even if not explicitly identified as such, per the Supreme Court decision [Wheaton v. Peters http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/33/591/case.html].

If the only reason it was tagged is the substantial overlap of the state law, I plan to close this item as resolved, unless you think I am misapplying or misunderstanding the SC decision.

As a separate topic, it isn't obvious to me that we should include the entire text of a law in an article about the law, but I'll leave that as an editorial discussion.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I know nothing of US copyright law. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for help
Thanks for your help to delete seo panel article :) You are really great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sendtogeo (talk • contribs) 17:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

IGI Global
Hi, I removed PROD from the article, since it is not a clear case I think, but feel free to go through with an AfD. I don't have a strong opinion about keeping the article. They MAY me notable, as a large publisher, but they also may not, as a low profile outlet, and also clearly targeting mainly universities as their clients. Googling for sources is a pain, since most of the results are not articles about them, but their publications, and one has to sift through a lot. cheers Pundit | utter  20:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

John Chambers
Hi

Thanks for the comment about the expansion. It was a little gem of a topic and, though I only came across it by chance, I thought he deserved a bit more said about him and his tenacity. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Struggle (political organisation)
You forgot to sign your comment at Articles for deletion/The Struggle (political organisation). 74.198.9.121 (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * done. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirect of Fake Sun Wukong
Hi. I really do not understand why you redirected my article, Fake Sun Wukong, to Sun Wukong. Could you explain why? Some other famous villains, such as Bai Gu Jing, warrant their own pages. in the novel The Fake Sun Wukong in Chinese literature is probably one of the more famous characters in the Journey to the West novel. The imposter Sun Wukong clearly deserves an article on its own. And also, the Sun Wukong page does not mention anything about the imposter one. Please consider reinstating the page. Thanks. --Bonkers The Clown (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I redirected because Fake Sun Wukong lacked references. If you have references from independent third party sources, you're welcome to undo the redirect. If you're unsure how to undo the redirect but have references to hand that you can add promptly, I can undo it for you. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Okay. But instead of a redirect, couldn't you just tag the page as unreferenced for the time being as it is unjust to redirect to the sun wukong page because nothing about the imposter is mentioned at all. And readers waiting to know about the six eared macque won't get what they want. Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And how about the Bai Gu Jing page? Also a famous villain, but lacks independent third party sources... Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But you see, it is really hard to quote reliable third party independent sources as there arent many. Look, even the Zhu Bajie article only quotes one citation only. In that case, you might as well redirect all the separate pages pertaining to the journey to the west characters. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If there aren't many sources, then it's not notable, that's the way it works, as set out in WP:GNG. I'm not going to do wholesale surgery on these articles right now, but in the long term, they either need sources or redirecting. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But on the other hand, even though per policy, how can it not be notable? BILLIONS of people from China know the characters. Journey to the west is one of the four great classics. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Referencing is not optional. I've redirect Bai Gu Jing too, thanks for pointing it out to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Carbon Recycling International
Hello, I understand that CRI's article has an unacceptable lack of independent references, but that's only because I've been unable to work on it for the last week or so. The issue's been brought up on the article's talk page, and I plan to address it this week hopefully. I'm quite new to editing, and I realize now that it would have been better to edit the article and put some finishing touches on it before going live, but I think I can remedy this quite effectively. If you have any suggestions or help to offer, I would be most grateful. Cktt13 (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you visit CRI's talk page and check out some of the suggested references. Feedback would be helpful. Cktt13 (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

notice of interest about OggPCM's tags
Hiya, there. After a long while I took a look at OggPCM and noticed you had added some editorial notifications. Could you perhaps take a look at what I wrote on the talk page, comment on it, and draw the rest of the relevant parties into the discussion? In particular notify me on my talk page, because I'm in no position to follow up on all of the notifications which fall on my neck. Decoy (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've replied at Talk:OggPCM. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Olympics
Your changes are not constructive and have resulted in great embarrassment to Wikipedia regarding the Olympics. Please research articles before you edit them. Thanks, 65.255.193.127 (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
You do great work on Wikipedia. :)

LauraHale (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC) 

Faculty of Agriculture, University of Osijek
I have removed the prod tag from Faculty of Agriculture, University of Osijek, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-proded, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! KTC (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Entirely my mistake, the second PROD should have been an AfD. Not your siblings&#39; deletionist (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Faculty of Architecture Poznań University of Technology
Hi. In 2012 the Faculty of Architecture, together with the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Technology took fourth place in the group directions "Architecture and Construction" Ranking of High Schools by pl:Perspektywy and Rzeczpospolita (newspaper). KamStak23 (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you migrate the references across from the pl-wiki and remove the PROD. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Given how this AFD is going, I've deprodded Faculty of Architecture Poznań University of Technology as potentially controversial. Feel free to take it to AFD if you still feel the page should be deleted. -- KTC (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

archiving discussions
Hi Stuartyeates, I accidentally noticed that you use Miszabot for archiving your discussions. This is a very good practice! However, please do not forget to link to the archives from your talk pages. Many users may not know how to reach here and to the other 5 archives, and the general purpose of archiving discussions, rather than deleting them, is to keep transparency of discussions. You clearly have no reason to hide any of these :) I hope you don't mind this comment. cheers Pundit | utter  14:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is now a link. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Pundit | utter  21:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: McKenna Shoots for the Stars
I don't see any blatant form of advertising on the article. It might use some work, i.e. on the plot summary, but I think you did it wrong with flagging it, as I wrote it in a way that doesn't conflict with policy. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The subjects of articles need indepth coverage in independent sources, I see none of that there. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But still that doesn't necessarily warrant for deletion. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion nominations
Hello. I declined your speedy deletion nomination of Kitty Campion. This is because the article is not entirely promotional, with no non-promotional content. While there might be a few instances that could be considered promotional, overall the article is not, which means speedy deletion would be inappropriate in this case.--Slon02 (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I also declined your speedy deletion nomination of Medical Daily. G11 speedy deletion only applies in cases where articles are entirely promotional, and there is not content that can be salvaged after all promotional content is removed. In this case, I trimmed the article somewhat to remove promotional wording.--Slon02 (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Five
Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!


 * Guest activity increased in July. Questions are up from an average of 36 per week in June to 43 per week in July, and guest profile creation has also increased. This is likely a result of the automatic invite experiments we started near the end of month, which seeks to lessen the burden on hosts and other volunteers who manually invite editors. During the last week of July, questions doubled in the Teahouse! (But don't let that deter you from inviting editors to the Teahouse, please, there are still lots of new editors who haven't found Teahouse yet.)
 * More Teahouse hosts than ever. We had 12 new hosts sign up to participate at the Teahouse! We now have 35 hosts volunteering at the Teahouse. Feel free to stop by and see them all here.
 * Phase two update: Host sprint. In August, the Teahouse team plans to improve the host experience by developing a simpler new-host creation process, a better way of surfacing active hosts, and a host lounge renovation. Take a look at the plan and weigh in here.
 * New Teahouse guest barnstar is awarded to first recipient: Charlie Inks. Using the Teahouse barnstar designed by Heatherawalls, hosts hajatvrc and Ryan Vesey created the new Teahouse Guest Barnstar. The first recipient is Charlie Inks, for her boldness in asking questions at the Teahouse. Check out the award in action here.
 * Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania! The Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania this past month, where editor retention and interface design was heavily discussed. Sarah and Jonathan presented the Teahouse during the Wikimedia Fellowships panel. Slides can be viewed here. A lunch was also held at Wikimania for Teahouse hosts.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of 2004 Fed Cup Asia/Oceania Zone
The page for the 2004 Fed Cup Asia/Oceania Zone is considered notable by WP:Tennis because it is the most prestiguous team tennis competition for women. While, I grant you, there are only a few references for the pages and they lack overall content, you must realise that WP:Tennis has fallen rather silent in recent years and I believe that I am the only person actually working on the Fed Cup pages. Therefore, they are progressing slowly. So please just let get things together and in time the pages will be of a good standard, particularly the team pages (which are, at the moment, rather rubbish). However, please just acknowledge that as a part of history in a competition that is a major part of tennis and is noted as being worthy of wide coverage on Wikipedia, the page is notable. Kapitan110295 (talk) 08:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As per WP:GNG, independent references are a criteria for inclusion in wikipedia. I find it very unlikely that this particular comp is "the most prestiguous team tennis competition for women" since it appears to be a regional event. If you're going to create these pages may get fewer complaints if you include an article lead which makes it clear (a) what sport is being played and (b) why this particular competition may be notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of New Crusaders
I have removed the prod tag from New_Crusaders, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks!

I disagree with your proposed deletion of the page. Specifically I think the non-notable comic concern is off base. New Crusaders is a reboot of a series that itself is notable, and is published by a publisher (Archie Comics) whose other titles all have their own pages. The independent refs tag is of slightly more concern. The information in the article is from the comic itself or the comic's official info pages. Should I cite other sources (like reviews or interviews with the creators)? It's a fairly new comic so there isn't a whole lot of material like that but I'm sure I could find some. Letsgetcozy (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Length Extension Attack
Yo. I'm tired of people like you, who clearly aren't familiar with cryptography, or any computer-science at all, coming in and saying something isn't notable or doesn't exist. F right off ok? Do your research before marking something for deletion. Go learn something. Fresheneesz (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that. You'll find my PhD in Computer Science at http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/handle/10289/2600 Do your research before abusing someone. Go learn something. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So how'd you miss the plethora of relevant and reliable sources when you searched google? I'm sorry if I'm rather pissed off sounding, but every single freaking page I've created recently has been proposed for deletion. What has Wikipedia become when you can't try to create an article without people trying to tear it down? These are legit concepts, I'm no Wikipedia newbie. Fresheneesz (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't. Like most of the current sources in the article, they're blogs and not WP:RS. I do WP:New_pages_patrol and look for two things (a) a clear explaination of what this thing is and (b) what appear to be reliable sources. Length extension attack failed on both counts. I suspect where you're tripping up is actually stylistic rather than factual. The start of the explanation needs to be much clearer, to give more context so instead of A length extension attack is a type of attack on certain hash algorithms with the construction H(key ∥ message)[1] that allows an attacker to extend a known message with almost any data. say something like In cryptography and computer security length extension attacks are a type of attack on certain hashes which allow inclusion of extra information. ... This gives a less technical introduction to the article (because most wikipedia readers aren't technical) and extra links for those interested to get the information to understand the article. As for the sources, blog-structured websites (hint: they have the date in the URL) are usually presumed to have lower reliability. For a topic like this, I suggest using a google search that only includes academic websites, which have a higher presumed reliability. Do this by including "site:.edu" as a search term. Note that editors placing a PROD on an article have to do much less work that those placing an article up for AfD; I only did a very quick search before placing the PROD. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I beg of you, please only suggest deletion when content should not be *anywhere on wikipedia*. Otherwise, suggest a merge, cleanup, rewrite, or request that sources be found. Deletion should not be thrown around lightly. Being a stub is not grounds for deletion, nor is bad writing such grounds. Less reliable sources, doesn't mean that enough consistent blog entries can't make a good source-case. Also, I found sources from actual papers.
 * I'm not arguing on behalf of my article, I'm arguing on behalf of articles I will never see that you consider deleting in the future. Please give those articles more of a chance next time. And feel free to edit Length extension attack, I'll incorporate your writing, since you haven't. Fresheneesz (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I beg of you, do a couple of hundred pages of New Pages Patrol before you come on too strongly about WP:Inclusionism and WP:Deletionism. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Mason Durie
Just in case you haven't watchlisted the move discussion, please note that I have responded to your suggestion.  Schwede 66  23:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:PROFESSOR?
Hiya! I was just editing the article for Encyclopedia of Mathematics (James Tanton) and I share some of your concerns for notability. I see where the book is listed as a reference/further reading title for some books and schools, but not really anything to where I'd absolutely declare it free from notability concerns. I did do a little searching and saw where there could be cause for there to be an article for the author, in which case this article could be redirected/merged into an article for him. I've done a really quick and dirty article for him in my userspace (User:Tokyogirl79/James Tanton), but I'm not as familiar with the notability requirements for professors as well as with mathematics awards. I'm going to pull someone from the maths wikiproject to see if they can go over it as well. I just didn't want to throw this into the mainspace if there's a chance it doesn't pass notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of e-Science City
I understand your concerns regarding notability/independent references. However the project is an educational resource being developed within a host university with direct European funding and so at this stage we are having trouble finding independent references (including from other projects as they are often Mou partners). Would it be possible to leave the page as is for a short while longer as we are still developing the resource? Also can you suggest anything we can do to improve the article if it is to stay? I am a fairly new editor so any advice would be gratefully received. (Cookie1088 (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC))
 * This is often a problem with EU funded projects, but as far as wikipedia is concerned, without truly independent references with in-depth coverage, the project is not notable. See Articles for deletion/COMET (EU project), Articles for deletion/PARSIFAL Project EU, Articles for deletion/Inter2Geo, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scape project, Articles for deletion/Pol-primett (project), etc. What I suggest you do is let it be and if it does get deleted, as for a WP:REFUND, so you have somewhere to start from if the thing really takes off. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

FK 34 Brusno
Hi. In this team played former Czechoslovakia national footballers: Kazimír Gajdoš and Karol Samuelčík. I think this players are notable. IQual, 13 10:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited from players to their teams. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Template rewrite
Back when we were preparing the authority control program you asked about rewriting the template (hopefully to make it more maintainable). I've had a go at it, and the result is here (notes here). At the moment, the technical backend for the complex cases (eg LCCN) is still the same as it was before. but it's all been devolved to sub-templates so that adding or removing a section is relatively simple.

Stage 2 is to rewrite the documentation more clearly, and I'm working on a draft now, but if you have a chance would you mind having a look at the template to see if you think it's on the right track?

Thanks, Andrew Gray (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

NZ flax/harekeke/ Phorimum/Flax in NZ
As much as I would like to comment on it I will take your advice and lay off for a while. I feel that Obsidian Soul is skewing the argument with an opinions that are not grounding in fact and I am bearing the brunt of some of it. And I still have not got to the library to source more info on the topic... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Feedback requested at the Village Pump
Hi Bushranger. I have a proposal at the village pump about introducing a color scheme to the text editor so it is easier for newer editors to differentiate between different kinds of syntax, particularly references. I'd welcome your feedback at the village pump whenever you have some time. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ngati Tama
Hello could you please help with the refs for this? Details are provided in the edit summaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.36.191 (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of posts ( Courtenay Place)
Hi Stuart - I'm not sure if this is the correct way to reply - first time on Wikipedia, so I hope you get this. I understand the reasoning behind removal of our first attempt at updating information, but we do need to ensure our information is correct so instead of deleting changes please let me know what I can do to improve the text. We are a company that need our information correct - I'll rewrite and let me know your thoughts if changes are needed. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by WgtnVenues (talk • contribs) 04:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First up, you appear to be editing with a Username_policy, which is prohibited. Secondly you are adding material which is not sourced to a independent third party source (that's independent of both you and the subject of the article). Thirdly you are replacing a perfectly-working URL www.stjames.co.nz with a commercial one to which you seem to be promoting, in direct contradiction of our ati-Spam rules. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Rongo Wetere page
Dear Stuartyeates,

I'd like to discuss the issue relating to the above page. Time is a problem for me at this moment but I will get back to you asap. I have removed the material for which I have no source which can be found on the web, the source I used is a document I was given. I'm hoping this removal will enable the removal of that shocking box at the top of the page. Thanks, Straitarrow 11:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straitarrow (talk • contribs)

Stages (Melanie C album)
Why did you delete & redirect this article? 'Stages' is a real album by Melanie C coming out in a few days. The article is a work in progress. There were links and references on the article linked to Melanie's official website showing factual information about the album. I worked hard on that article, and have restored it. Please to not tamper with it again.

Speedy deletion declined: International Federation for the Promotion of Mechanism and Machine Science
Hello Stuartyeates. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of International Federation for the Promotion of Mechanism and Machine Science, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Major international organizations are usually notable. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 11:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Rongo Wetere 3
Dear Stuartyeates,

I have undone the changes you made to this page for the following reasons: -your addition of the phrase "as of 2012" has no source to support it, the text of the ref listed does not say when he began at AM   -the refs worked fine in the previous format, there was no need to change them into reflicks -the new refs I had added contained a minor typo which is why they did not work/ they have been corrected and now work/ why would you not pick up that obvious typo and instead delete them as dead links??Straitarrow 11:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straitarrow (talk • contribs)

speedy declined
I declined the speedy for David Hoenigman; according to WP:CREATIVE, what makes a writer notable is coverage of his works. Substantial reviews are the usual sources for this, and they seem present. It is not the case that there has to be significant coverage of his personal life, any more than there has to be coverage of the personal life of an athlete at the top level of professional sports--their professional careers are what counts.  DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Six
Hi! Welcome to the sixth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
 * Teahouse serves over 700 new editors in six months on Wikipedia! Since February 27, 741 new editors have participated at the Teahouse. The Q&A board and the guest intro pages are more active than ever.
 * Automatic invites are doing the trick: 50% more new editors visiting each week. Ever since HostBot's automated invite trial phase began we've seen a boost in new editor participation. Automating a baseline set of invitations also allows Teahouse hosts to focus on serving hot cups of help to guests, instead of spending countless hours inviting.
 * Guests to the Teahouse continue to edit more & interact more with other community members than non-Teahouse guests according to six month metrics. Teahouse guests make more than twice the article edits and edit more talk pages than other new editors.
 * New host process implemented which encourages anyone to get started as a Teahouse host in a few easy steps. Stop by the hosts page and become a Teahouse host today!
 * Host lounge renovations nearing completion. Working closely with Teahouse hosts, we've made some major renovations to the Teahouse Host Lounge - the main hangout and resource space for hosts. Learn more about the improvements here.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

CSD declined - Tobar an Dualchais - Kist o Riches
Hi Stuartyeates. I've declined the WP:A7 tag you placed on this article - a quick search in the Google news news archive yields more than enough to demonstrate notability. Just because the page creator didn't add any independent sources doesn't mean there aren't any! Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 10:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Unconditional (film) - notability
Dear Stuartyeates,

Thank you for taking the time to patrol this article. I have a request, though - this is most certainly a notable subject, as it is a major (albeit upcoming) film. The fact that it is independent should not, in fairness, be a mark against its notability. I totally understand the need to alert readers to the nature of the article, but can't we come up with a better message than "not notable + primary sources"? Maybe leave "primary sources" and do something like "upcoming event" to underscore the fact that more sources just aren't available yet?

Thanks, let me know what we can do for this. (And in the meantime I will continue to work on primary sources. But that does take time, especially since this is my first significant WP article and I'm not usually much of a film buff. :)) LarsKemmann (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Notability is defined entirely in terms of sources. If appropiate sources are not avaliable yet, then it's not notable yet. See also WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Rongo Wetere 2
Dear Stuartyeates,
 * Did you forget to remove the COI tag? If this wasn't an oversight could you please talk to me and tell me why it hasn't been removed??Straitarrow 14:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Stuartyeates,
 * I have done some clean up which addresses the concern you had re NPOV. The COI template should now be removed. If you don't agree; please discuss. Straitarrow 19:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:People from Russell, New Zealand
Category:People from Russell, New Zealand, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

James Cuff
you prodded this; he may or may not be notable, but its a re-created copyvio, & I deleted it as such and am advising the author how to do it right. It's usually worth a check, especially when it reads like a website and references a website  DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Advance Romance
You considered deleting the page I created, "Advance Romance", so I put my arguments on why it should stay up in the article's talk section. Please consider these arguments and thank you. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Farook College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Link
Hi mate, I removed a link you posted from a couple of pages - I'm sure you know which ones - as per this policy. I don't believe it was at all intentional. If you don't understand why or you disagree, feel free to raise it at my talk page. No need to reply (happy to leave it at that). Feel free to remove this note if it doesn't require further discussion. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC).


 * You are absolutely right, massive grey area. Not the same as Australia (across the ditch bro!) where we have to pay for a search. It was up, concern was immidiate and I removed it without specific confirmation of the details (as per the above). I will contribute to/support your thread. Important to clarify it. As I said - didn't believe it was at all intentional and am now even more convinced. Cheers mate, Stalwart 111  (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC).

Watershed (American band) singles
Re: being told my recent entries are being considered for deletion... please refer to my lengthy diatribe on my talk page, I wanted to see if you had any thoughts / input about it. I've been busy at work so I cannot effectively track down proper references by 13 Sept 2012. I contacted the band's manager to see if he could help... hadn't heard from him yet. So I'm off for two days now, we'll see if I get ambitious. Wheljam (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've left a message on your talk page. I hope it steers you in the right direction. If you've ranted, it's not been beyond reasonable bounds. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

For the record...
For the record‎. You deserve both a thank you and an apology. Not sure you'll get one from those involved, but you have my thanks and I'm sorry the whole thing has become a silly SPA battleground. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC).

Teahouse
Hi Stuartyeates! Thanks for helping new editors at the Teahouse, we really appreciate it! I just wanted to let you know about our expectations at the Teahouse - they were designed with new editors and the unique concept of the Teahouse in mind - a concept that has been successful at retaining editors! You can check out the expectations there. Also, if you feel comfortable and confident with those expectations, I encourage you to become a host. I know saying "Hi!" and super friendly responses might be a bit cheesy or different, but, they have proven to work wonders! Thank you again for your contributions!! SarahStierch (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Stanley M. Rowe Arboretum
Hi there! I believe the article on the Stanley M. Rowe Arboretum is worth keeping, and have added three external references to the article to better document it. It's one of the official Conifer Reference Gardens of the American Conifer Society, and has received an award from the American Horticultural Society. cheers, Daderot (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Rongo Wetere 4
Dear Stuartyeates, I have added a new section to the RW talk page. I'd appreciate your attention in regards to it.

Thanks, Straitarrow 20:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straitarrow (talk • contribs)

Mary's Voice
Removed your deletion header for Mary's Voice after adding independent sources and whatnot. Also, the other album articles have been there for years. So there's that. CerpinTaxt (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Removing a PROD after adding references is fine by me. The fact that articles have been around for a while doesn't obliviate the need for them to meet the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

ibt
Hi Stuartyeates, Thanks for your edits to ibt. I saw the articles you mentioned but I can't say that they pass the WP:SOAP tests. The CT article you listed doesn't Jang controls it, it says simply that the founder "declined to participate in a Christian industry association," so ownership is a stretch. And the other 2 links are just cut-paste jobs from the ken Smith blog, but when I look at it closely he seems to be on a witch hunt and saying all sorts of things. About Jang he says "I found myself, almost without thinking about it, wanting to stretch the truth," in his blog... not sure if this guy is trustworthy. But looking at IBT's history it says what the wiki says -- ie it's owned by Etienne Uzac and Johnathan Davis. This is a corporation. They can't just make up whatever. I am tending to believe that than some bloggers on the net. Bloggers also say Bernanke is part of the illuminati -- should we put that into Ben's wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volcom7 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Elwyn Owen Arnold Welch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Kelvin Grove


 * Mount Bruce Wildlife Centre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Kelvin Grove

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

How is your fork going?
You do not seem to have done much with it as of now. For your information, I have recently regenerated Rater's list of templates, so now it should not contain spurious entries (which are not assessment templates calling WPBannerMeta). You might want to copy this, since you seem to have inadvertently placed a few in some places… On the other hand, you might want to wait a moment, because I have not taken care of aliases (redirects) list yet. Keφr (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC on differentiating reference syntax in text window
Hi Stuart-- based on the village pump discussion on giving reference syntax a unique color to differentiate from other text while editing, I've opened up an RfC to expand the audience on the topic. You are welcome to participate anytime. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi mate, I hate to have to revive this again but it was re-started yesterday and today. Thought you might like to give your 2c. Hopefully admins will approve a topic-ban for both and everyone can get one with it. Stalwart 111  (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A follow-up question from the teahouse
A couple weeks ago you helped answer a question I posed (under a previous account name) about creating an article on psychiatric abuse in China (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_41#Unreferenced_quotations_.2B_creating_an_article). I didn't write back, but I did see your comment, and I appreciate the advice. I wanted to ask a quick follow-up question. You suggested that I could begin by expanding Political_abuse_of_psychiatry, and spin it out when it gets too long. I'm just curious what the threshold is for creating a stand-alone article. Is there an objective measure, like a word count, or should it just be done once that section has enough content to make a fairly well-rounded page? Is there a concern about throwing the Political abuse of psychiatry article out of balance if I make the China section inordinately long? Thanks. Keihatsu (talk) 08:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no set limit, don't worry about throwing out Political abuse of psychiatry out of balance. I'd also consider attempting to broader some of the sources and include official responses (if any) to some of the claims. I'd also consider the structure of the article; chronological sequence is the default approach. In particular the section seems short on coverage of the early China period. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Great, that seems like sound advice. I started a new section on the talk page to propose the idea, and I'll work on pulling some more sources together while I wait for a reply. Keihatsu (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)