User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights/Archive 2

HTML Mark up
I'm sure you probably already know this, but you need a semi-colon on the end of &mdash to get &mdash;. I noticed you were having a few problems with it. Hope you don't mind me mentioning it. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  16:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all, thanks. I'm no computer technician, and I've only been here since early March, so I still haven't figured out all the formatting yet.  Will remember.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 16:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this website. It contains some codes for various symbols. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  16:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks. I never would have found that on my own.  I've got to check that out.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 16:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, puhleez...
It's become impossible to describe this politely; "bullshit" covers it pretty well. This dingaling has broken every rule on the site and is griping and groaning about a single-sentence substub, one of many I might add. Apparently he doesn't obey his own "ten-minute rule" since I deleted a slew of old nanostubs whic all said the same basic thing. I tell you, I am torqued. had to deal with a bunch of what was quite literally online terrorism from some monkey back in August and I'll be damned if I'm letting that happen again. Thanks for the nice words, by the way. PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just happened to notice that this latest sock is more than one year old. He did one edit last November and just unleashed with it earlier today.  Time for a ban.  I mean like right now.  This is just freaking ridiculous.  I've seen some trolls on this site before, but this just takes the taco.  It's impossible to be civil in the face of this.  PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

 * Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
 * There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
 * If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The Help (2011 film)
I removed the CSD - The text was copied from the article on the novel to the film. The copybot picked up a wp:mirror. --CutOffTies (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for letting me know. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have a failure to communicate with this individual
It is definitely time for a ban of our sockpuppeteer. Agreed? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You read my mind. :) This example and this example are prime examples.  This guy needs to be added to this august company.  In fact, I'm doing the research on an article on the Tuma River as we speak.  Not much to it, but there is a major hydroelectric plant on it and it feeds into Nicaragua's first man-made lake.  Took me less than two minutes to find this info.  PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sonofagun, we almost have us a stub! Why couldn't that other guy have done this? PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It's also a tributary of a larger river...and we have an article on the bigger river already. Damn, it's nice to actually create new content for a change. PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Dude...we rock. I mean rock.  PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. It's just that the site has become so comprehensive that I've run out of new content to write about. PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely wish you the best. Going to sign off for the night. Take care and thank you so very much for the help on the new stub. Later! PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation - your input is required
A request for mediation has been filed concerning a matter in which you have participated.

The operative page is at Requests for mediation/Creampie (sexual act). Please go there and indicate your acceptance of mediation at the Parties' agreement to mediation section (or you can decline to accept mediation, if for some reason you want to.) If you have any questions about mediation, see Requests for mediation or message me. Thank you for your time and consideration. Herostratus (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised?
You know, I remember the Tobias Conradi account. I used to see him a lot on new page patrol. I never had a run-in with him and I thought he was an editor in good standing. No wonder he's banned; he's made a HUGE mess of things. Sheesh. :/ --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Off Wiki canvassing
The Two IPs are coming from different Continents so its most likely not a sock drawer The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't seem like socks; even a newbie would've known that was too obvious. Definitely looks more like off-Wiki canvassing... just what I wanted to deal with when this mess is unfolding before me (see the thread directly above on ANI).  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone did mention the SemEval page on the Corpora mailing list --- computational linguists tend to be online a lot, but do not necessarily know all the arcane rules of Wikipedia debating. On the other hand, everyone's contributions have been polite and to the point. Francis Bond (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Evaluation Campaigns
G'day,

you seem to have, from my point of view, a very idiosyncratic view of what characterizes advertising. As far as I can see, both the SemEval and Trec pages are pretty neutral pages on large scale evaluation campaigns. They are only some of approximately 30 Computer science competitions already in Wikipedia (like the DARPA_Network_Challenge). Can you explain to me here, with specific examples, exactly why you think it these pages are advertising? If not, then I will remove the tag from the TREC page, as I do not, in good faith, consider it to be advertising. Neither, I might add, did any of the other editors who created and worked on this page, or those who created versions of this page in German and Arabic. Francis Bond (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"Boycott Scotland"
Looks as if someone got it for you. :) It's redirecting to the article you mentioned.  Back to the break... --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see, There's an extra "Ali" in there.  I'm doing an AfD nomination for the first time in years and I'll take another look at it once I'm through trying to get the darn thing to appear on the discussion board.  PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, all done. I've semi-protected the redirect in the meantime. Thanks for alerting me; gotta split. PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

An AfD
I dunno why, but thought you may enjoy this discussion. I'm pretty sure you've been involved with other vanispam stuff. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 02:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah; I'd have tagged that a combo A7/G11 if I came across that on NPP. Vanispamcruftisement covers this pretty well, I think.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Suzan Bushnaq
Dear The Blade of the Northern Lights, I have tried to improve the Suzan Bushnaq article (you commented in the Afd) can you offer any concrete advice as to how it might be further improved if you were to be convinced as to the desirability of keeping it? Hope it is OK to write here on this. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC))
 * Dear The Blade of the Northern Lights, have you had another look yet and is it still not up to scratch? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC))

About SkillSlate
While we disagree about the article's worthiness, I just wanted to say that I value your contributions here. I've come to respect that even though we disagree, the process of questioning each other works out well in the end -- it's why this encyclopedia (in my POV) is so great. So whether SkillSlate stays or goes, please know that I appreciate your work here; plus I'm going to be needing help on other articles; if you have any interest in working with me on revamps of Dating and Behavioral economics let me know. I find the best way to do a revamp is to find out who the articles keepers or guardians are, get their views and green light, post a trial version (for people to look over) and then switch it. It worked with United States Congress in September.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I usually try to throw a little humor into AfDs, and sometimes I forget that I can be a little too caustic (I have PDD-NOS, so I can sometimes seem way out of touch with everyone around me).  I'd be happy to work give Dating a look; I think I can offer an interesting perspective, as a 20 year old who's never been on one (completely by choice; if I felt like it, I could).  In turn, I'd love for someone to take a look at some Burmese articles, specifically Myanmar Armed Forces and Zoya Phan, the latter of which I basically built myself.  I'd also love to do some work on the Karen National Union (link is in my userbox), but I first want to see Zoya's article all the way through because she's a living person, so her article really needs the extra effort. See you around!! The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Never been on a date? By choice? If interested, I have a knol about this subject here but I'm still working on it -- this is highly POV. But I'm interested in academic perspectives and global stuff too. Yes I'll try to check out Zoya Phan and if I can find new stuff, I'll post it to the talk page so you can consider adding it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me; one of the side effects of my PDD-NOS is that we have about 8000 books about behavioral development, and at least one of them has to have information on dating. I'll see what I can dredge up.  It's not terribly hard to find information on Zoya; the trick is to search British news outlets, as she's based in London.  Hope that helps. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey the Zoya Phan article is excellent. So whatever this PDD-NOS stuff is, it sure didn't hinder you from creating a fine article. I recently upgraded my operating system but there's constant system crashes; unfortunately I lost some of my strings for sources (but I can rebuild them). I'll try to add stuff for British news sources too. I'm busy with other projects for perhaps a week or so but I have ZP on my watchlist so I'll keep thinking about it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me; I should be able to give dating a look in a few days or so. The PDD-NOS isn't so bad for content writing and things like that; I tend to be at extreme ends of spectra, and for reading I'm easily in the 99th percentile (writing is a bit different, but my vocabulary is right up there with my reading). Where it can be difficult is when I'm interacting with people, because sometimes I'll say something I think is innocuous, but really agitates people, and I often don't understand why.  It's a bit easier for me over the Internet, but in addition to that I can sometimes fall victim to misinterpreted facetiousness.  I got a lot of intervention from the very best in the business, so I turned out much better than most people like me, but it can still be difficult. Thanks a lot!!  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 23:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The more I look at this article, the more I know it's bullshit. There's no indication of notability whatsoever. The only "keep" argument is "look, it was in the NY Times!" What are the rules for renominating AfDs? I don't do that much. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 11:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure... I think you can whenever you want to, but I'd probably give it a little time to let tempers cool. It'd certainly be good to get more people involved, because I think that'd shed some light on the sheer bollocks that claim is.  But yeah, you can renominate it whenever you want. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Architecture in Lhasa
Its all my work and John Hills's and the Norbulinka with Nvvchar. They didn't even admit to who actually wrote it and then had the audacity to call it "terrible work" on my talk page. They removed it from the Lhasa article and passed it off as their own and made the lhasa article much worse. I deserve an apology (by them). QWhat they should have done it condensed it into a written section and then split but now we don't even have notable landmarks even listed within the article. They made a hash of it. I've at least patched up what they did now... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. But the malicious tone of the person who removed it in the edit history of Lhasa is most unpleasant. Good though that you recognised it was decent content, which is ironically why this editor removed it from the article because he thought it was the exact opposite of that! Some people are clueless...♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Www.languageskillsforexams.ie
Please discuss. Bearian (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,
 * Your comments are solicited at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Workshop. JJB 19:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Risaruto
Dear Blade, I'm the creator of the page Risaruto in japanese(Risalto in italian and english). Yesterday we had a small conversation about it. I'd like to translate that page in many languages, therefore put an article in many wikipages in which my account is not valid. how to do that? how to make my account valid on others wikipedias? (yesterday you said that with yours you can create pages in many languages... thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teoporta (talk • contribs) 09:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but actually i found a way to have an account valid in more countries. It's been possible, i don't really know how, but this is what happened. Keep in touch! comment added by Teoporta —Preceding undated comment added 09:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC).

Another WP:MILL
I don't even remember nominating this because it's been forever, but Copiun seems like WP:MILL, or it did at the time. I don't even care how you vote, and I won't be insulted by a Keep... just wanted to get at least another vote on there because it's been two weeks! &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 14:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and your work is a fucking pile of goddamn shit. ;) &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 14:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was wondering when someone would break it to me... ;) The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 14:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

re: Joan López i Carol
Oops, I found the source but I forgot to add a link to the article. Thanks for saying,  Kubek15  write / sign 21:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Compare the dif and it might help
You asked a question in the edit summary of Chillicothe Constitution-Tribune. How could this possibly be an A7? Did you bother to look at the entire article when it was tagged vs. when you made your comment? see dif. That one sentence was not making "any credible claim of significance or importance." I suppose I could have used A1 at the time too as saying "Chillicothe Constitution-Tribune is a newspaper in Chillicothe, Missouri" is not much different that saying "He is a funny man with a red car." Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Gollum (software)
Hi, I removed the A7 speedy tag you added to Gollum (software). A7 is for "No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)." From your template selection, it looks like you thought Gollum was a "web content"; but it's software, and "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works." I did, however PROD it. TJRC (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW exists for exactly this purpose. I didn't, and don't, see a need to force this through process if it'll end up deleted for non-notability anyways.  But we apparently have different opinions on this, and I can understand; it just depends on the reviewing admin, because I've had several instances where admins were willing to delete software articles even if it wasn't exactly web content.  Thanks for letting me know.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:SNOW does not exist for the purpose of misusing WP:SPEEDY. There's no reason to SPEEDY this.  PROD allows the article's author and other potential contributors an opportunity that the subject is notable, even if the notability is not apparent from the face of the article.  SPEEDY does not allow this.  I think it's not notable; you think it's not notable.  But neither of us is infallible.  It may turn out to be notable, and there's nothing wrong with giving other editors an opportunity to make that case.  If it's not notable and it stays up a week because of the PROD, big deal.   WP:NORUSH.   If you disagree, and believe that A7 should be expanded to cover software as well as web content, you should make a case for that change; but you should not attempt to apply the A7 criterion in its present form to an article to which it is not applicable. TJRC (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not how I read it (I read it as "If there's no way it could ever hope to be a decent article, even if it doesn't exactly fit some criteria, there's no sense in dragging it through process for the sake of process"), but reasonable people can disagree. And yes, I actually did think this particular article was web content, as a lot of times people use "software" as a euphemism for "web content", but it doesn't matter; it's been PRODded.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can really rely on our own judgment that it would not survive the process, given that someone could not add information showing its notability. It's instructive to look at the example given: if an article was already speedily deleted for the wrong reason, it's pointless to force it through the laborious process of restoring the article and then subjecting it to another process (AFD) to be deleted correctly, just as a matter of form.  That's very different from saying it's okay to speedily delete for an inapplicable reason in the first place.  Use SPEEDY for the things SPEEDY was designed for; Use PROD and AFD for the things that are PROD and AFD are designed for. I think the fact that you mistook the software from web content empathizes this.  If you are not sufficiently familiar with the subject of an article to distinguish the two, that's probably an indication that you may not be sufficiently familiar with it to judge its notability. And in such a case, its best to err on letting those who are most familiar with it have their say, which SPEEDY circumvents. Put another way, since SPEEDY can bypass any capability of other editors to correct the basis for the claim, it's best to use it only where you're certain it applies, and have the background that your certainty is reliable.  TJRC (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, reasonable people can disagree; I usually am very careful about tagging things, but I made a mistake on this particular one (in thinking it was actually web content). After having done NPP for just about 6 months, I have yet to make a mistake on whether software or web content gets kept or deleted, whether I PROD it (as in the former) or tag it for speedy deletion (like the latter).  My personal feelings on it aside, it's being taken care of according to procedure, so it's really not a big deal in the scheme of things.  I have had a couple instances where I just tag things per IAR (my two favorite examples are Got curled? and Contage), but I try to stay within the typical CSD.  It happens, and I'm not really that worried about it.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 20:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Arminka Helic
Hi. I have nominated the Arminka Helic article for deletion. Since you were one of the contributors to the article, I felt I should inform you. You can visit the AfD page here: Articles for deletion/Arminka Helic. Thanks. Shashwat986 (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Grupo Jade
for fixing that CSD for me.  Nolelover  It's football season!  23:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem; in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, I always check the nonsense and unspecified categories when Special:NewPages is slow. The nonsense pages are almost always something else (a lot of people don't seem to know what patent nonsense actually means), and with the unspecified category there are often db-reason tags which are already covered by CSD; if you tag them with a standard template, they get noticed a lot faster.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 23:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I knew there was, I just didn't have the time to read each criteria, and learn all the redirect ones, to find it. Anyways, thanks.  Nolelover  It's football season!  23:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, now you know; you learn something new every day. It took me a while to get them all down, so don't worry; it's just part of the process.  See you around!! The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 23:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright! And again, thanks.  Nolelover  It's football season!  02:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Penny Phang
Hi. keep your eye on this one, s/he's removed the CSD template twice in the last ten minutes :) --Kudpung (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I shall. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 06:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Tis the season


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

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

SIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGH
That is all. Thanks for your input as usual. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 01:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to help when I can. There really can't be too many people doing NPP; I only know of about 9 or 10, and one of them does it manually because he's blacklisted from most automated tools (except for Friendly).  I love it, but this is the sort of thing that makes it very confusing to get into; it seems like everyone who tells us that our view of G1 is nothing but an opinion uses their own personal one (not policy) to rebut it.  As an aside, I recently came across two real gems; Orville Brasher - famous magician in the 1940's and Jonathan Kern - British Con Man (got to that one just before it got RevDeled from the log).  That's why I enjoy doing this. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Something that's unrelated to anything else here, but I found this interesting: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. It's like you said, only a few NPPers out there, but lots of admins deleting stuff. It seems the NPPers have a better grasp than the admins sometimes. Sigh again. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 15:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinion
Hello again. Here's an article that's on my watchlist since an AfD failed a while ago: William Andrew Dunckelman. What do you think of this? I think it's a resume and/or a vanity page, and there were no "keep" votes for the previous AfD. I also find it quite suspicious that most of the recent edits came from ip addresses. The creator has very few edits outside of this article. Maybe I just don't like it, but it doesn't feel good. What would you do with this? &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 20:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And this line should not be in Wikipedia: On April 28, 2010, William met the love of his life Kristi Badeaux. William took Kristi on their first date to the Thibodaux's Fireman's Fair. He immediately became smitten with her. He asked her to be his girlfriend on May 31, 2010, and has been in love with her ever since. :) &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 20:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like vanispamcruftisement to me; how this doesn't fall under A7 is beyond me. It reads like a thinly-veiled resume.  Another AfD ought to take care of this; I'll start one when I have a bit more time, if you or someone else doesn't beat me to it.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 21:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Help
My first attempt at a new article and I am stuck because I cannot satisfactorily amend a reference to get it accepted. Thus my article appears as less than a sentence which obviously will be deleted. I have read the citing rules but changing my text does not work as I expect. I know it is me that is being stupid but there it is. I start the text as "Samuel Ware was the son of another Samuel, a currier of St John Street, St Sepulchure, Middlesex . He was born 25 January and baptised 23 February 1781 at St Sepulchre Church as the son of Samuel and Ann Ware " but the citation is marked as not having a name. So I give it a name, and then it says that the citation named is not mentioned before. Help!

Ledernacken
Delete It. Accidental post. Edkollin (talk) 06:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks: Actually that was a Google Translation of the German Wikipedia article. But it has no citations. I do remember them being played on an alt station Edkollin (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Pelada (film)
You proposed to delete this article because it is about an "unremarkable movie." Have you seen the film? Is there a set of criteria for judging the remarkability of a movie? It seems remarkable to me. Thanks. HowardMorland (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Unremarkable", in this context, means that it doesn't assert any importance, significance or notability, and there is no third-party coverage in the article that shows it has been covered by any reliable sources (websites or newspapers who have reviewed and published opinions on the film). By simply stating that "this is a documentary" and "its premiere was on blah date", there is no indication that the subject of the article is remarkable. See also, WP:NF. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The guidelines are helpful.  HowardMorland (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=403482727 Hesperian 07:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle Feature Request
I just made one. Maybe you'll agree and maybe not, but seems like something you'd want to comment on. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 16:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've noticed the same thing you're talking about. I'll give it some thought, but I think I like your idea.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 16:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedway templates
Just tell me why you would want to keep them? They serve no additional purpose to the function of templates already existing. They are just duplicates and completely defunct of any necessary navigation role. Of course they should be deleted, surely? Officially Mr X (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Fish in a barrel
Do this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NewPages&dir=prev&limit=15000&hidepatrolled=1, and then search for "(band)". &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 17:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. All I can say is wow.  At the time of writing, there are 93 hits; we'll be lucky if 5 of them are legitimate.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I tackled a few of them. This is why I just posted on WT:CSD: can we get more NPPers? &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 17:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Cleared (for now). Yeah, we need more people; it's really hard to keep up with everything and simultaneously monitor PRODs.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just ran this query again. Killing these things. Sad how they may skate through unnoticed! &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 15:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And FYI, yesterday I A7'd another band that included bloodtypes of the band members. Haha &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 16:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh god, not again. That's one of the more amusing things I've ever come across. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 23:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Matty Goldberg
Will you please reconsider your speedy delete request he is a comedian see here are some links about him. Thanks

http://www.mattygoldberg.net http://www.twitter.com/according2matty   http://mattygoldberg.tumblr.com/

TucsonDavid GOD BLESS THE U . S . A . 05:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Kaohsiung before 2010
I create this to provide information before reformation in Dec 25, 2010 as Chinese wikipedia Does.TRA&amp;HSR&amp;BUS&amp;MRT&amp;LRT (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Longevity Articles dispute:JJBulten confesses to "mission" based on religious zealotry
Greetings, Blade of Northern Lights, I will be the first to admit that the editing tone and style of myself and others on the "longevity" articles on Wikipedia may, at first, seem a bit brusque. However, I would hope you would understand that many of us, including myself and Brendanology, have been stoked/provoked by two camps, both of whom have agendas which are contrary to Wikipedia policies.

The first camp, in 2007, believed that "supercentenarians were not notable", yet notability is conferred by outside sources. Most of that dispute went away as Wikipedia editors eventually admitted that the GRG was a reliable source, that supercentenarians could meet the definition of notability, and that if fair standards of editing were applied, most supercentenarian-interested editors would be objective and fair. I note, for example, that there are more than 1600 validated supercentenarians in the scientific databases. No one is pushing for all of them to be listed on Wikipedia: in fact, we wouldn't want Wikipedia to mirror our work. Instead, we think that coverage on Wikipedia should mirror what objective, third-party reliable sources decide.

For example, the New York Times didn't want to do a story on Emma Tillman of Connecticut when she was 110. Or 111. Or 112. Or 113. But when she became world's oldest person, they decided she was notable enough to do a story. Thus, one could easily argue that notability of supercentenarians is established when coverage exceeds the local birthday or obituary story and becomes national or international in scope. Emma Tillman's story made the BBC news. Thus, notability was established by outside sources.

The second notability argument is that supercentenarian coverage meets the definition of "one event." That could be true if the only coverage were of the person when they died, but by definition, if there was significant coverage of two or more related events, then that person may be notable. For example, Walter Breuning has been covered many times over many years:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-26-oldest-man-christmas_N.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314374/Worlds-oldest-man-Walter-Breuning-turns-114-reveals-secrets-longevity.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/health/2009/09/28/2009-09-28_walter_breuning_worlds_oldest_man_at_113_credits_longevity_to_skipping_dinner.html

He hasn't even died yet. There is a third notability misassertion that supercentenarian notability is removed when they die. It is not. Walter has held the world's oldest man title for more than a year. His time of holding the title will remain on the record books even if he were to pass away. Notability such as this is not temporary.

If this were the only problem, well it's still a big problem. But there's more. Problem number two, the religious fanaticism camp, is akin to those who want Creationism taught in schools, alongside evolution. These type of Christian fundamentalists are not satisfied with merely believing what they want at home and in church. Instead, they want to impose their belief system on others as the de facto social value.

Since the system of supercentenarian validation and verification that has been in place for 130+ years favors the scientific, secular position of evidence-based longevity, a single certain editor on Wikipedia, JJBulten, has made it his religious mission to overturn scientific consensus...all because someone "dared" to label Noah's Biblical age of 950 to be a "myth" (even though even Christian sources, such as Arthur Custance, used that word).

Check out these two comment threads from the 110 Club:

Far from attempting to find common ground or assume good faith, JJBulten has attempted to fan the controversy by opening old wounds and pouring salt on them.

From an outside source: (note:InvisionFree is on Wikipedia's blacklist, but it is a mere site host for group blogs, which vary in content and quality).

DHanson317 Posted: Dec 25 2010, 11:18 PM Group: Members Posts: 40 Member No.: 1,043 Joined: 31-October 10 User BrownHairedGirl has decided herself the necessity to remove all flags. Why she's doing this now, I do not know.

JJB Posted: Dec 26 2010, 08:40 AM Report Post Group: Members Posts: 1 Member No.: 1,052 Joined: 12-December 10

I'll tell you what shes doing, by taking away the flags, shes showing that there's no need for articles about supercentenarians in each nation. Shes making the way for me to delete articles on all the supercentenarians who arent the WOP.

John J. Bulten

From the above comments, we have evidence of conspiracy. That's a strong word, and I direct it primarily at the current motivator behind it, JJBulten. Please consider analyzing and digesting the above statement:

"By taking away flags, she's showing that there's no need for articles about supercentenarians in each nation"

FALSE. Notability of an article is not disestablished by editorial decisions to remove flags. However, this is evidence that JJBulten (who brought BHG to this Arbitration Request, even though she was not actively editing these articles for about 3 years now) has attempted to influence other editors to remove material and degrade articles, in preparation for his plan to delete them.

Notability is not established/disestablished by the behavior of editors on Wikipedia; notability is established by outside sources.

Walter Breuning, for example, is not a world's oldest person yet, but he has received substantial continuing coverage well beyond the local and "one event" rationale of a single line-item obituary:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-26-oldest-man-christmas_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Yet I suppose by JJ Bulten's illogical assertion, all we would have to do is to delete an American flag by his name and "voila!", now he's not notable and his article should be deleted.

But the bigger issue is not that Bulten's comment is illogical. The bigger issue is that his editing (involving article degradation and deletion), POV-pushing, anti-scientific agenda (he claims that Biblical ages such as "Noah lived to 950" are literally correct, and thus people living to 114 today are not notable) is detrimental to Wikipedia's fair and efficient operation. BHG herself created the "list of supercentenarians by nation" idea in 2007, as a compromise for articles that were on the cusp of notability. It was also seen as a more-efficient organization scheme (by nation). We see a lot of categorization on Wikipedia by nation for topics outside supercentenarians, whether it be "Canadian actors" or what have you.

Now, we have an editor who has identified past disputes (the one about "notability"), re-opened them, and attempted to fan the flames of controversy by merging disputes about supercentenarian articles from 2007 with JJBulten's own far-far-right, radical conservative agenda (I note that even Christian apologist Arthur Custance believed that humans once lived hundreds of years, but not in modern times, while JJBulten has stated he believes people can live to 950 today).

Update: On December 25, JJBulten confessed to his mission, to delete all articles on supercentenarians that he can (he's actually deleted articles on World's Oldest Person titleholders too, such as Elizabeth Watkins).

Now, today he confesses why:

II. Message 2

1. What Alexandr said (and quoting Brendanology):

Alexsandr Posted: Dec 17 2010, 10:18 AM Report Post

Supercentenarian

Group: Members Posts: 149 Member No.: 1,021 Joined: 29-July 10 QUOTE (Brendanology @ Dec 17 2010, 10:07 AM) JJB has employed a number of tactics on Wikipedia, including:

-POV pushing -converting editors -use of flowery language to scare editors (like DHanson317) -smoke-and-mirrors tactics to distort facts -and a number of others.

I feel that as long as he presents his arguments in a RATIONAL manner, he can stay. But if he begins trying to convert or recruit members here who are also editors on Wikipedia (such as myself, DHanson317, and NickOrnstein), out he goes. The 110 Club is a place to discuss supercentenarians, and is not a recruiting ground or an extension of his practices on Wikipedia.

If I were him, I'd find it strange to be banned from the 110 Club before I have even made my first post.

It's a free forum; we should let him stay for at least a while. If he causes disruption, criticises, or offends members who edit on Wikipedia, then it's straight to Complaints.

Just my 2 cents.

You right: here be place for the discuss of supercentenarians. but JJb is not beings interested in that. Has anything ever that he do on wikipedia indicate that he has interest like us?

No.

All he do there is try destroy all work for maintain coverage of not-bible supercentenarians. If it be JJB then he not here for right reason.

2. JJB's response:

JJB Posted: Dec 27 2010, 12:15 PM Report Post

Youngster Group: Members Posts: 2 Member No.: 1,052 Joined: 12-December 10 QUOTE (Alexsandr @ Dec 27 2010, 11:43 AM) Read what he posts yesterday. he not here for good. Delete his account I think.

Alexsandr, are you trying to say I should be banned because I disagree with you? I'm standing up for the Bible and you can call me narrow-minded all you want, I am proud of it, by pursecuting me you'll only increase my reward.

From the above message, JJBulten admits that what he THINKS he is doing is "standing up for the Bible" by destroying the scientific standard. Can we allow this kind of agenda-pushing on Wikipedia?

There is an old saying, it's not a boast if it can be backed up. I'm not here to "win" a contest. I'm here because Wikipedia has not sufficiently paid attention to the real threat to mainstream, scientific coverage of longevity posited by JJBulten, who has waged his "religious war" for more than a year. Ryoung 122 21:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, BNL! I've seen your responses to this on the ArbCom page. Between that and your statement way up top about your talk page being an OK place to vent, so long as certain minimal niceties are observed, I am very impressed. Very little of the "dialogue" in this whole longevity fustercluck reflects favorably on the editors involved. Your contributions, in contrast, are exemplary. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

fustercluck
I would like to personally curse at you about the speedy deletion of the fustercluck page. Oh wait, no, a non existents band who has never had a record contract and changed it's name more times than it has played in public Is significant. And every obscenity it has ever called itself has it's own Wikipedia page. If the World First and Only Free University with thousands of learners since 1998 renamed it self fustercluck, will you make a Wikipeida page for us? Oh wait, we educate Black People and Poor, Forget it. Just go fustercluck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottprovost (talk • contribs) 07:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

AFD
Any thoughts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Axelrod Ivanhoe67 (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Deborah Axelrod


The article Deborah Axelrod has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:SPIP This talk page entry makes it admirably explicit that this article was created for reasons which fit squarely within the four corners of the proscription against "Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity" WP:SNOW

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David in DC (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"Earthcore" article.
hi, i'm the user "cognitive dissident"... i cant' get access to my account anymore since i first edited the "Earthcore" article for some reason, so i've been posting from IPs. you gave me a "Level 3 warning" at some point but i don't know what that means. Am i allowed to edit the article?? I'm a little stunned that i was "warned" after wikifying and attempting to discuss the articles issues?

The user "Fisted Rainbow" uses the argument that I am a promoter (I'm not) and, therefore, that I have have no business editing the article, which would be fair if it was true. However another edit by user 114.77.29.223 (obviously "fisted rainbow" by his interest in the earthcore article) at the page Rainbow_Serpent_Festival shows him engaging in the same behaviour, posting on his ex-competitors wikipedia page. I hope you don't see this comment as a personal attack on either fisted rainbow or your moderation, i'd just like you to acually follow up some of these links and have a look at the edit history of the page so we can discuss adding the "controversies" section. I have no interest in an edit war and we all know what will happen if I just repost the section with more references :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.208.34 (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(Hi, I'm also the previous IP, was unable to access my account for a while for some reason) Whats your opinion on this article at the moment?? Am I ok to add another "controversies" section, with appropriate references of course?? Cognitive Dissident (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

NPP--
New page patrolling has been without a patroller, me, for a few weeks. My work is actually picking up now so I'm not able to do as much of it. Just an FYI! &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 23:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm getting really busy now too, but I've been working it in where I can. If you haven't noticed, there's a discussion over at WT:CSD about autopatroller; if we can get the threshold for it lowered, that'll make our lives about 10 times easier. You may want to weigh in on that. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 00:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Dear he Blade of the Northern Lights (cool name),

Assuming good faith, my guess is if I understood correctly, seems you made a point, stating that the criteria of Wikipedia is very serious and elaborated (holly Inquisition). And, at the same time, wrote this in a context provocative, probably because you have thought me before as also provocative. I acknowledge was perplex and yes, may be should have written the defenses in better way. So, anyway I would like to remark that we both are in the same side: Wikipedia side. And even if wasn’t that case; please know I never had the intention of upsetting none. But if that occurred, in someway, I ask apologies. Another important realization is you let me know the article is violating a Wikipedia rule. I didn’t know that. My mistake, sorry (freshman). But still don’t know what rule is that. I will research this rule and make right this time. Of course, if the article has not possibility of framing this rule, there is not much to do. Would be a shame but it’s Ok. I’m also short of time, but will do my best for finding someone and finishing that work (New Ghost Theory). MatPoc talk

Speedy deletion within minutes ?
I was in the process of editing a newly created article, by copying from my user sandbox. I needed a few minutes. Why would you be so aggressive in deleting an article within minutes? I recreated the article so that I could place the content there. Please read before deleting. Distinguished Lukacs Professor is about an academic honor and contains a list of several highly notable statisticians and probabilists who have had this position. Mathstat (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My problem is the "speed" of the deletion - look at the record. I was editing the page when it was deleted. The page was created at 14:37, nominated for deletion at 14:23 and deleted at 14:27. How is that enough notice for a person in the middle of creating an article? I would request that you at least wait a few minutes. Not everyone is an expert with the markup. Mathstat (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding your reply - "You can take up the deletion with the deleting admin; I have no control over that. Very few people do what I do (New Page Patrol), so I have to make quick decisions, and at the time the page had no content. " But did you check to see what time was it created (minutes before)?  That's the issue here. If you want quality content, then you don't want people slapping together something in 30 seconds. Anyway, thanks for the mention of the templates underconstruction and editing. Regarding your tip: "You can also work on things in userspace by making User:Mathstat/Name of Article, then move it into mainspace when you feel it's ready." --- I did that, and was in the process of copying the content, which was not trivial. I don't see an automatic way to "move" the article on the user subpage to live. I spent hours reading the help pages and did not find the answer to that. Mathstat (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! a bit quick on the trigger. I understand you have a tough job monitoring content, but you should also take the time to re-read the wikipedia references you cite and remind yourself why wikipedia started and how it came to be what it is. Better to err on openness than assumption, lack of due diligence & research. My article was flagged while I was still proofing it... give yourself 24 hours before you pull the trigger blade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loosecaboose (talk • contribs) 19:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanaleng Railway Station
Sorry—I meant to create that article in my userspace, not in article space, as I've noted on the article's talk page. I've now moved the article into my userspace; would you mind deleting the mainspace redirect for now, until it's ready for me to move back into mainspace? Thanks. --dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 17:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you like chili?
If so, here's a mind-boggling discussion, at least to me. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 17:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do. In return, will you have a look at WP:Articles for deletion/HIT-5?  We need another voice there. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 19:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ooops
The original article was recreated by the original editor subsequent to your moving it and I retagged it. Sorry for the misdirected notice. Safiel (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion Regarding DavidinDC
Greetings,

I'm coming here to discuss this issue because you seem like a more-reasonable person than DavidinDC. DavidinDC has a long, long history of attempting to "get under my skin" and he has even kept a list of that. And let me know it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World%27s_Oldest_People#Deletion_recommendations

We can see from above that he has been involved with this since 2007, targeting articles dealing with supercentenarians. We can also see, right below, him working with JJBulten. Now to review your perception of the issue:

I'd be very careful making comments like that; you're treading dangerously close to NLT territory.

Stating that someone is violating the law is not actually saying that one is going to pursue their legal rights. But the very fact that this is even being discussed points to problems with Wikipedia, where otherwise-insignificant people get delusions of grandeur by attempting to disparage work that outside, reliable sources, such as the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, found reliable...for more than a decade. Since before Wikipedia even existed. Yet all that matters to DavidinDC is his personal opinion of notability, NOT the rules of Wikipedia, NOT the standards of notability established by outside sources.

Also, your status as an expert would be welcome on Citizendium; however, all that screed above proves is that your arguments are logically unsound.

That above statement is in fact a fallacy. If DavidinDC is attacking the reliability of sources, showing that the sources are reliable is logical. Your argument, not mine, is unsound. This is not an "appeal to authority" but a counter to accusations made.

Instead of addressing the concerns of the delete voters,

We didn't see any concerns, just opinions. The only argument for deletion is "I don't like it," which is not a correct argument.

you're using a combination of poisoning the well (by calling David in DC a cabalist before you even begin to make your point),

Wrong. David poisoned the well. Before his arrival, my first argument dealt with the misapplication of BLP rules to a non-biography article. You are like the referee who sees only the response to the initial violation. Why no criticism of DavidinDC, when his arguments are always the same, never address the lack of facts in his arguments, and "pooh-pooh" others, including the sources?

red herring (by bringing up unrelated articles on supercentenarians),

That is atrocious! DavidinDC brought up a discussion about homophobia...who really dug for a red herring? At least supercentenarians are closer to the subject. This article is an intersection of a list of supercentenarians with the geographic organizational theme of "Africa" as a continent.

straw man (by misconstruing his claim to mean the GRG isn't a reliable source, when what he actually means is that the GRG is self-published, raw data and not The TruthTM),

I don't publish the GRG, and to me it's not a self-published source. It's NOT raw data...how can you say that? Let's get to the real facts. Forget David. Raw data is someone claiming to be a supercentenarian, maybe even being featured in the news, but not having any documents to prove it. You'll find that the GRG has DOCUMENTS to back up the cases listed.

and ad hominem (by calling him a cabalist who attacks every article, when you know full well that's not the case)

I know full well he attacks every article he can find, and he even posted a reminder of the articles he attacked on my talk page. So you're wrong.

arguments. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line, every accusation you made was incorrect and did not consider the facts. If you want to have a discussion of FACTS, then talk. Ryoung 122 12:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I had nothing to do with creating the table on the WOP WikiProject talk page, nor was I involved in ANY of the 2007 longevity debates. I learned of the table some time after JJB created it in 2010.  It seemed a useful tool to make sure everyone on the project got fair notice when an article was up for deletion, and quick notice when there were results. RY used it to become aware of, and deprod, an article I prodded. I filed an AfD, and the article was deleted.


 * Just in case facts have any place in this conversation. David in DC (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy Decade :)


Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

 Baseball Watcher  Lets Chat  has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 23:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Gershon Weisenfeld
See my response on the hang on tag to that page. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 20:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Juice Jam
I noticed you prodded this article and the prod was later removed by the author. This is a friendly notice to let you know that I nominated this article for deletion. --nn123645 (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Jane Kirby
Thanks for improving this new article. I don't know much about skating or skaters, but I've been working on the Ice Capades article. Lots of skaters are listed there, and all but Jane have their own articles, most of which seem to have been created by people who know skating. I started a simple article on her, hoping that more knowledgeable people would begin to improve it. Thanks again for chipping in. --Lou Sander (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad you like the Ice Capades article. From your name, I'm thinking you might have something to do with Canadian skating. Am I close? (I've never been on skates myself.) --Lou Sander (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy...
A complete band article:

SQUISHee is a two member band formed in 2010. The members include an Asian and a white girl.

&mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 02:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. They'd be kicked off MySpace.  I remember your DeathBot idea; I swear we should have a bot that just deletes band articles from non-autoconfirmed editors.  I can't honestly remember a single one that I didn't tag for something or other.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hua Chunhui
Cheers...! Ocaasi (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

CSD
Please don't forget to notify the creator of an article when you nominate for CSD, e.g. Guys Who Do Stuff. I see that you normally do, so maybe you just got interrupted?-- SPhilbrick  T  17:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If I may, The Blade uses Twinkle, as do I. Sometimes it doesn't always work, and one page or another doesn't get notified (like a user). The worst is when an AFD doesn't get listed on today's log. Sigh. But Twinkle is mostly great. So blame the software, not The Blade, whose work is generally a fucking pile of goddamn shit but not so bad that he forgets to notify article creators. ;) &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 17:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what happened; I used Twinkle, but I guess it must not have notified the creator. I was on a slow connection, so I might have closed the Twinkle window thinking it was done (that it said completed instead of data loading...).  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the response.-- SPhilbrick  T  19:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

significance of due diligence, analysis; perils of assumptions & the spirit of interpretation of the letter
Blade:

Please remove you tag to remove my article about the creation of, philosophy behind and significance of Festivalfox.

I am unconvinced you you know know what you flagged, as you flagged it for being a club, it is not. Furthermore, the underlying structure behind festivalfox is similar to amny other articles found on wikipedia. Please take the time to reevaluate your basis for flagging my article and reconsider your actions. I referenced two clauses, from your citations, and I don't think I have violated the criteria for contributing an article to wikipedia. Is this article about an insignificant club, or is this article about a small yet significant social network formed in Europe based around high ideals and common goals. You're a history buff, you should know better: in a sense, this a directory of the 21st century salons of Europe, formed in reaction to the dominant hegemonic structures back in the day. Only substitute royalty with multi-billion Euro corporations seeking to constrain culture as an exchangeable commodity....

My second point, I encourage you to re-read the very citations you referenced. But take care not to confuse your subjective interpretation of the letter with your spirit of judgement. Remember what wikipedia is all about, remind yourself what it was deemed when it first came out,scoffed at by ivory-tower academics-types as unreliable because anyone can and what it has grown into, now cited in many college papers... So be carful not to play judge because what might seem significant to you might very well be to over a 1000 event organizers in 7 countries and the 10000+ monthly users who use the site as a resource. In addition to the fact that the letter of the guideline explicitly states: "When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture" our site, by definition does. and although small, I suggest you finish the very sentence, "...smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations."

Therefore, please reconsider and remove your flag tag from my article.

Regards, -l

PS: in my personal opinion if wikipedia editors should err, it should always be to the benefit of the doubt to openness as opposed to restricted by editorial interpretation (that's the whole point of wkikpedia :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loosecaboose (talk • contribs) 19:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Glog
I think you're right, I waffled on that choice. I didn't know you could mention both, thanks, I learned something. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, twinkle's handy, but I'm not proud, I can use raw source. (--Nuujinn (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I ask for your attention on...
... an all-caps redirect. I don't even see a debate here, and it is probably r3. No reason to keep this.

Got anything for me? &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 13:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's another one: Articles for deletion/Entropy\Send Them. I'm not so interested in a vote on this, but rather... what should the AfD be discussing? The original AfD isn't about the current article now, and clearly the redirect (article with a backslash) does not need to exist. Confused. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 13:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Slave baby killings
Is it okay now? Swimmerwinner72 (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How about merging into Infanticide? USchick (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, that may not be a bad idea. I'll ask Swimmerwinner72 at his talkpage.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 04:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Responded. Swimmerwinner72 (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

How to approach?
Hi Blade, what is the proper way to handle a situation when an article was created by a user with no other editing history (or very little), the article was tagged for deletion, and the deletion tag was removed by the original creator with no explanation. For example: Copal partners and Yaser Kasim (you tagged this one). At least Yaser Kasim seems to be actively under construction, but Copal partners is not. I would like to follow protocol and criteria for deletion doesn't address this issue as far as I can tell, please advise. USchick (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! USchick (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

About Speedy Deletion of Indonesian Seven Summits Expedition Mahitala Unpar
Thank you for your attention. It is not about a club, however the title is like that. The title is official until now. But as a big expedition there are many persons involved including from the Television and certainly other climbers. Some of them only accompany for two or three climbing to the peak. The aim is to reach seven summits by a team not only by several persons of the team, so if they cannot reach all the seven summits altogether as a team, the mission is fail, although as a person they still noted. I will make additional information I got and I think is better if their activities is for the country and not for the club only. I'm also agree if the title will be changed. Gsarwa (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)