User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights/Archive 3

Redirect
hello Blade of the Northern Lights as you nominate for speedy deletion again the person has deleted your remark try to violate rule link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govind_Kumar_Singh useless page I changed your CSD on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Need_For_Speed_Hot_Pursuit&redirect=no to what I assume is an uncontroversial redirect, is that ok?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

AfD fail!
wow. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 15:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh for fuck's sake, how did that get through? I'll probably renominate it in a month or two.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 16:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert Young (gerontologist)
Greetings,

Regarding this dispute:

Erm... where did I enter into this? I didn't have anything to do with the (now deleted) article on Robert Young; I didn't create, tag, or delete it (not that I could have deleted it, not being an admin). If you're talking more generally, outside this specific recreation, open up another section and I'll respond there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I noted was you reported this page creation (by Plyjacks) to David in DC, who then tagged it for deletion.

I would have felt a lot more comfortable had a neutral, third-party person noticed the article and made a judgment call.

Some facts:

1. I did not know that Plyjacks planned to re-create the article.

2. As discussed in the 2007 AFD, Carcharoth, Crusio, and others agreed that there was enough material on me to add a paragraph to the Extreme longevity tracking article. However, I think that article should start with persons from 100+ years ago, like Thomas Emley Young. So, yes, I agree there is a bit of "recentism."

3. Whether I warrant an article or not, this was deleted before I even had a chance to read what it said. So, I was more concerned with that than whether the article should or should not exist.

4. While you seem more reasonable than JJB (religious fanatic and self-proclaimed paranoid psychotic) and David in DC (who tries to be a ham while "sticking it to" people to irritate them), I'm concerned about whether the Wikipedia "whack a mole" tendency is all fair.

I note, for example, that the GRG has material published by a third-party source, such as here:

Erm... where did I enter into this? I didn't have anything to do with the (now deleted) article on Robert Young; I didn't create, tag, or delete it (not that I could have deleted it, not being an admin). If you're talking more generally, outside this specific recreation, open up another section and I'll respond there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet, we have JJB then attacking Rejuvenation Research. It seems that he has no limit. Moreover, he continues to not follow Wiki protocol, from:

A. "Voting" on his own deletion proposals B. Mass-nominating AFD's C. It was JJB who launched the so-called "Bolding War" (his words), then he cites opposition to his changes as evidence of a "Walled Garden." Walled or not, why are such attacks not called into question? D. JJB is a "party" to the ArbCom, yet he has self-proclaimed himself innocent and others guilty. Since when is a prosecutor also a judge? E. Citing himself as policy (which was his own recent edits, and he failed to notify others of changes, and then claiming "silence is consent") F. Mislabelling others as "Conflict of Interest." CanadaJack, DerbyNZ, Brendan, etc. all have NO "Conflict of Interest". Brendan is a 15-year-old kid who runs an amateur blog. How is that COI? G. JJB intentionally tried to "stir the pot" by involving other editors from disputes 3+ years ago. Is this a way to find consensus, or cause more problems?

I'm posting this because you seem rather more mundane and reasonable than JJB or David in DC. David in DC is NOT under the same influence as JJB, but rather he seems to be egotistical and still edits based on his personal whim rather than what outside sources say.

So, we have several issues to discuss:

1. ArbCom behavior of editors (including JJB and his multiple transgressions). I can see where some might find me over-the-top, but most of the time I am like a linebacker pointing out a false start on the other side.

2. Wiki policy regarding "reliable sources" and "biographies of living persons".

Note that we have several issues. First off, many/most supercentenarians are deceased, and most of the "living" articles are just lists. Those don't fall under BLP. That leaves only a few articles under BLP to discuss.

The fact of the matter is, the GRG is cited by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Guinness World Records, the AP, APF, etc. Not only that, it's a NONPROFIT organization. So one can argue whether COI even applies to the GRG.

COI "might" apply to Guinness World Records, but I'm not adding GWR citations.

Rather, I have been opposing blanket deletions of articles based on policy misinterpretation.

I hold a very high standard for creating articles based on the intersection of longevity and notability. I don't create articles on 111-year-olds, in general. I cite 111-year-olds in local papers as being not yet individually notable, perhaps notable for a list. I believe that notability begins when cases are cited nationally or internationally (such as Frank Buckles).

Yet, often kids (teenagers/fans) create articles on people who just turned 110, or even age 109. In some cases I opposed deletion because the arguments for deletion were incorrect. People would say things like "supercentenarians can't be notable" instead of "some supercentenarians may be notable, but this one doesn't have significant coverage."

The other issue is that of "one event." If someone was reported just for their death, that may be "one event." But if they were reported for their 113th birthday and then a year later at 114, that's NOT "one event." Moreover, "one event" is, by example, a non-notable person interviewed about a fire in NYC and the fire story being covered in multiple sources. In a case like that, it's not only "one event" but a trivial mention.

What's different, when you have someone like Mississippi Winn, is that they are covered in national sources, the articles are about the person (non-trivial mention), and the age was mentioned before (i.e, 113th birthday in March 2010).

For practical purposes, consider Louisa Thiers. The "world's oldest person" in 1926, according to science, the article was unfairly deleted by JJBulten and others. Her coverage has been continuing, over 80+ years, and many of the sources for the article were NOT the GRG. Yet Bulten indicated (and never denies) that he wants to minimize/delete articles on supercentenarians because he believes that people living to 110 aren't notable, when the Bible cites people living to 950. Never mind the fact that even Biblical fundamdentalists like Arthur Custance believed that people "once" lived a lot longer, but not now:

http://www.custance.org/old/seed/ch5s.html

See figure 2.

So, when all is said and done:

1. Most of my "violations" have been pointing out other transgressions.

2. We need to have JJBulten dialed back from his "blacklisting" all who disagree with him.

3. We need a discussion of the GRG and reliability. Remember, BLP rules don't apply for dead persons, and don't apply for non-biography articles.

4. We need a discussion of what is COI and what is not. In fact, I was an editor at Wikipedia before I became the "Senior Consultant for Gerontology" for Guinness World Records. Nearly all persons cited as "conflicts" in fact started out on Wikipedia, or edited on Wikipedia long before the so-called "conflict" arose.

5. David in DC has a tendency to misstate the truth in AFD's, often claiming "no sources" when articles had one, two, or even seven or eight sources.

I ask you this: my personal article, how many reliable sources did it have? Do I write the Atlanta Journal-Constitution? One could argue "local notability," but that doesn't mean the source isn't reliable. Ryoung 122 05:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll address the substance of this issue tomorrow, when I have time; for now, I just want you to be 100% clear that I am not calling for your head here. I don't want to see you banned from Wikipedia, because I think you have valuable contributions.  I know it's easy to see this as Us and Them (although I must say I like that song), but I'm a New Page Patroller who stumbled across this by chance; I have no stake in this.  Trust me; I have no love for religious views on longevity, I'm a strong agnostic.  More to follow if I can find the time. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 05:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To the Blade of the Northern Lights,
 * Apparently I have upset you regarding the above ArbCom. I don’t quite know what you mean by being a bit “ducky” and you feel that my comments have been “inflammatory” and unhelpful. I certainly have strong opinions on the above, as I see it as censoring the works of science in the same tradition as the reaction to Charles Darwin and the Scopes Monkey Trial. There are important issues at stake, and I have expressed my opinion. What else am I supposed to do?Cam46136 (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136

How do I warn someone about reverting speedy deletions?
Okay I put one up on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politemps

And then the guy decided to revert it (it is a spam thing as I can tell) so how can I send another warning? Thanks!

Kamkek (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Timneu22
Leaving aside the turn this just took, I think you would be best taking up that case with Fred Bauder, who decided that was the place for the RFC, rather than RFC/U. Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Blade, you have email turned off. Send me one and I can reply with the info I just sent Daniel Case. No socks here, just WP:OUTING that I'm not happy with. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 17:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nuttin. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 17:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just sent myself a message; it should be working now. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You should have mail. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 17:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And indeed I do. I'll be around for NPP, for the time being at least; we'll have to carry on. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, well keep up your shitty work! ;) &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 17:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you need a laugh on the way out; here's the entire content of Mount everest migration, which I tagged. "Mount everest migration is what happens annually when Hindu Sherpas move the mountain from india into China.  It is a sacred ritual, and has been occurring for the last 10 million years."  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I made a request to the Oversight account. Putting the note here so as to not further muddy the edits that need to be redacted. I don't know where the other 'discussion' took place, so hopefully Daniel and Fred will be forthcoming. Syrthiss (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've asked Fred Bauder at his talkpage to explain his thought process; discussion will most likely happen there. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, have it watchlisted. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

barnstar

 * Thanks!!!! That's the 2nd barnstar, and I do appreciate it. I love NPP, and I wouldn't give it up for anything (on-wiki, that is); the recognition isn't necessary, but it's sure thoughtful. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 22:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Walled Garden?
Greetings,

Let's take a closer look at the disputes regarding supercentenarian articles.

1. Reliability is established by outside sources, not editorial opinion. 2. Yet, we see David in DC in particular make a lot of unsubstantiated allegations. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tase_Matsunaga

"Delete There are absolutely no sources in the article's text. Under the "External links" header there's a single link, to a Gerontology Research Group web page. There's some controversy about whether GRG pages are simply not reliable, whether they are biased against non-western centenarians or whether they are primary sources, prohibited for citation by WP:NOR. Whichever way one goes, this GRG web page cannot be the sole source for an article on Wikipedia. David in DC (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)"

Allegations made by David in DC A. GRG is a "self-published" source. Actually, it's not. If a family puts up a photo of grandma on a blog and says she's the world's oldest person at 120, that's self-published. If a family sends us the documents that indicate that someone is 114 and, after careful analysis, the GRG decides that the case is true and puts it on the GRG website, that's NOT self-published. Moreoever, if the GRG makes a mistake, it is open to scrutiny. In the past ten years, out of more than 1,000 cases, only two mistakes regarding death reports were made by the GRG...an accuracy rate of 99.8%.

B. The longevity articles on Wikipedia are a "walled garden" that needs pruning. Nonsense. We've already had a lot of trimming. Some of the articles deleted, such as Louisa Thiers, represent the loss of substantial information and smacks of "recentist" bias. The article was sourced to not just GRG material but to public-archive records. As the last child of a Revolutionary War veteran and as the first verified living person to attain age 111 in 1925, and as someone mentioned in both the scientific literature and the very first edition of Guinness World Records, this article should have stayed.

Fact: I don't generally create articles on supercentenarians any more. And when I did, I waited until they were at least 113 and had coverage in sources beyond the local.

C. Supercentenarian coverage is "one event." Aside from the purpose of the "one event" rule, to prevent coverage on non-notable persons who might have been, for example, a witness to a fire, articles about supercentenarians are sourced to material ABOUT THEM rather than trivial mention. And in most cases, the coverage was over a period of time, often several years.

D. The GRG is a "data dump." It's terms like "data dump" that make David in DC part of the problem, not part of the solution. The GRG is a non-profit entity (so much for COI charges) and is governed by U.S. law regarding privacy. Moreoever, it is run by persons with academic credentials (Dr. Coles has a Ph.D., for example). The data is not "dumped" but is instead processed. This process can take a long time, which is why the Wikipedia articles are often updated before the GRG is. So, to suggest that the GRG is a data dump is just being nasty and negative.

E. "The GRG is non-Western-biased." This accusation came after JJBulten and David in DC deleted articles such as List of African supercentenarians and List of South American supercentenarians. JJBulten even stated that it would be easier to take down the list on European supercentenarians afterwards...by deleting articles on non-Europeans, they could then counter that the data was biased. But the fact is, the data is limited to the state of recordkeeping 110+ years ago. The GRG data is actually more widespread than, for example, IDL data:

http://www.supercentenarians.org/

You can register and logon. By the way, did you notice I'm listed as a contributor?

http://www.supercentenarians.org/project_contributors.htm

The fact is, I am the only person in the world that is associated with all the major supercentenarian databases. They call me "Switzerland". I real life, I come across as neutral. Only on Wikipedia does there seem to be a "problem." Often, that problem is that non-experts come on here and try to edit in ways that are inappripriate. Itsmejudith tried to delete the articles on Longevity Myths and on Oldest People. Ironically, JJB and I agreed on at least one thing...that was a bad idea.

Itsmejudith has since come around to be more reasonable, and others have noticed the misbehavior of JJB, but David in DC's continued negative characterizations of both the GRG and Wikipedia articles on supercentenarians in general is now the biggest problem, assuming JJB's wings are clipped sufficiently.

Coverage on the death of Eunice Sanborn, world's oldest person according to Guinness World Records, generated more than 800 articles in English alone. Whether the GRG exists or does not exist, the fact remains is that the media has long decided that extreme longevity is notable. David in DC's push to delete "old" articles about supercentenarians in the past smacks of recentist biase. It's easier to delete articles on Elsa Moberg than Walter Breuning, but that doesn't make it right.

David in DC's push to delete articles such as Tase Matsunaga was overturned.

In my honest opinion, I have already suggested an objective drawing of the line, with a very high standard, for extreme age and notability:

1. Individual articles are warranted when coverage is continuing and exceeds the local news (i.e., Walter Breuning).

2. Mini-bios are warranted when the person was the oldest in the nation or among the oldest (i.e., Elsie Steele of the UK, to be placed in the List of UK supercentenarians.

3. List-only coverage may be warranted for persons 110+ who do not meet standards 1 and 2, subject to age verification by a third-party reliable source. That could be the GRG. That could be www.recordholders.org, which by the way is not a self-published source either, since Louis Epstein lives in the USA and sends the material to Germany, and the info. isn't about Louis but is about supercentenarians. Or perhaps the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research or the International Database on Longevity.

In conclusion, David in DC has gotten away with a lot, in part because he is a long-term established editor. But much of his editing reflects personal bias, not outside sources.

I note that the GRG list of validated supercentenarians exceeds 1,000 entries, while the Wikipedia list only does the top 100. Is less than 10% too much? Ryoung 122 20:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

List-Format Notability versus Bio-Notability
Greetings,

Words and actions often don't match up. I note that David in DC may seem to be OK with the GRG as a source on the Wikiproject:WOP board, but in several AFD's he went way beyond that, accusing the GRG of being "self-published" (not true), a "data dump" (the data is processed, not dumped), "unreliable," "biased", and lots of other negatives.

No one, not even me, is saying that simply being on a GRG list confers biographical notability. In fact, biographical notability is largely a function of how much attention the supercentenarian and their family want. I note that the Wiki lists even include anonymous cases (no name given, just age and rank), much like a Wikipedia list of editors by edit count.

It seems that others aren't getting what I'm saying. Negative comments like those made at several AFD's by David in DC (such as here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tase_Matsunaga

"Delete There are absolutely no sources in the article's text. Under the "External links" header there's a single link, to a Gerontology Research Group web page. There's some controversy about whether GRG pages are simply not reliable, whether they are biased against non-western centenarians or whether they are primary sources, prohibited for citation by NOR"

Now, while I agree that simply listed listed on the GRG list does not establish biographical notability, it SHOULD qualify the person for being on a list, such as the 100 validated oldest persons or something to that effect. The point of the list is not really biography but statistics, to give the reader some idea of how closely-conforming the maximum-attained ages for all humans are when sufficient standards of age verification are employed.

Problems with David in DC's statements: 1. The GRG was given as an external link "for more information," not as a source for Tase Matsunaga. So the criticism of using the GRG as a "source" is invalid here. 2. "Some controversy about whether GRG pages are simply not reliable"...again, notability of the GRG as a reliable source should be established by, for example, an article about the GRG that was on the front page of the Wall Street Journal in 2005, and its use as a source by the mainstream media. So, the problem is accusing the GRG of being "not reliable" is based on personal opinion, not outside sources which support the GRG as reliable. 3. "whether they are biased against non-western centenarians"...this is a negative comment that should not be made as there are no outside reliable sources that support such a negative assertion 4. GRG--a primary source?

The way I see it:

A family member applies to the GRG to have "grandma" on the GRG list. The applying family is the original source, the GRG is publishing the material. I don't put my own family members on the GRG lists. It is not a self-published source.

Thus, we have FOUR misrepresentations about the GRG by David in DC in just one AFD. This has been a repeating pattern, not an isolated incident.

I am arguing that listing a supercentenarian on the GRG or the OHB (my competitor, Louis Epstein) should be sufficient to qualify a supercentenarian for inclusion on a LIST, not as a standalone biography.

So, is there anything left to argue about? A careful reading shows that I am in agreement with you and even Itsmejudith, but not David in DC's negative commentary, which may not be enough to get him banned but should at least warrant a fairminded admonishment.

I also found it "COI" for David in DC to be lauding praise on John J Bulten on the Workshop page. Considering that David in DC and John J Bulten were heavily involved in a tag-team of AFD's in November-December (that resulted in some cases in poor decisions to delete to be made), David in DC should have recused himself from commenting on JJB's possible topic ban.

I don't see anyone on "my side" arguing for or against any proposed punishment for me, do you?

Ryoung 122 00:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Been a pleasure
And that's the last edit. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 16:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will; you keep it up too. I'll help this place, and by extension the whole internet, try to suck less.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 05:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)



Thank you
Your wish is granted - I just wanted to thank you for being so quick in adding the unreferenced tag to the article I just created on The Krazy Gang. Would you be a New Page patroller, by any chance? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and... The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of "T-Kernel Entry"
Hi, I tried to create an entry for "T-Kernel" a free real-time OS kernel, meant for embedded devices, i.e., devices with embedded computers such as FAX machines, laser printers, digital cameras, or automobiles these days, etc..

Anyway, to cut a long story short, the initial attempt was considered a spam article that tries to promote T-Kernel and was tagged for "speedy deletion" and is gone now in less than 24 hours. Maybe my justification or rationalization for the entry was not good enough.

Anyway, my point is that T-Kernel is being used in many applications along with its predecessor implementations based on ITRON specification.

Now, for real-time OS, Wikipedia has only these "entries" (taken from at the end of "VxWorks" entry, and I think it is very insufficient. It doesn't seem to have all the names in the "list of real-time operating systems." even.

List of entry names at the end of VxWorks:

BeRTOS · ChibiOS/RT · cocoOS · Contiki · DNIX · DSOS · eCos · Embedded Linux · ERIKA Enterprise · EROS · FreeRTOS · FunkOS · Integrity · Junos · LynxOS · MenuetOS · MQX · MERT · Nano-RK · Nucleus RTOS · OpenComRTOS · OS-9 · OSE · PikeOS · pSOS · Prex · QNX · RMX · RSX-11 · RT-11 · RTEMS · RTLinux · RT-Thread · SINTRAN III · Symbian · Talon DSP RTOS · THEOS · ThreadX · TNKernel · TPF · TRON · µC/OS-II · VRTX · VxWorks · Windows CE

I noticed that there is a sub-section titled "T-Kernel" in the entry for T-Engine, but T-Kernel, the software can run on any suitable hardware, and should have its own entry. I don't want to expand that section into a full blown explanation of what T-Kernel is: after all, the main entry is for T-Engine, the hardware. Growing the subsection will be akin to have a Windows or MS-DOS section for Intel x86 CPU chip hardware entry in wikipedia. It doesn't make a sense much since Windows (at least some versions) run on different CPUs (DEC Alpha, MIPS CPU, etc.).

Now, when I look at lynxOS, a real-time OS that has an entry in WikiPedia, to figure out what makes an article a spam only meant for promotion and what does not, I noticed there is a project to provide entries for computing terms, but when I visited the Project page and discussion page, I was at a loss where to start discussing. There was NO mention of real-time OS in the project page if I am not mistaken.

Probably starting a discussion in the computer project would be nice, but not sure which discussion page of which entry should be used.

Your suggestion where to start discussion how to approach enhancing the list of entries for real-time OS is appreciated.

TIA Zephyrusjp.

PS: I am not even sure if this "edit" is the right way to leave a message to you, but I have no other means to contact you, it seems.

PPS:

I am adding my sig Zephyrusjp (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Rural banks in Ghana
Nice idea (I too wish that pages like this could be deleted more easily), but it's far enough from policy that I don't feel comfortable doing it. I'm willing to bend the rules somewhat in one specific kind of case — if I delete an article that uses a non-free image with a rationale only for that page, I'll delete the image — but not really in any other. Nyttend (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Real life
Blade, I'm sending you a real Valentine in real life, I'm simply delivering it electronically. :-) That's for being so sweet, mature and rational (in real life). It's not necessary to have a girlfriend to be recognized as a decent human being and a true gentleman that you are! And I thought Valentine's Day was an appropriate time to do that. Also, when my personal life starts to suffer, that's when I know it's time to get off the computer and find some real people to interact with, but that's just me. :) It's been a pleasure running into you here! USchick (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Globally locked
Hi there. Thanks for your response at AN/I. What does "globally locked" mean? How/when/why is one globally locked, and how does one get unlocked? I wanted to ask here, so as not to veer off-topic and (further) broadcast my ignorance on such a wide forum as AN/I. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the clarification! 28bytes (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Home Office Drugs Inspectorate
Don't really know how the system works yet, fully, can you remove the tag please? I think I have done enough2829  VC 02:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be handy if the offending words could be highlighted in some way, or maybe the consecutive words that make it qualify? Just a thought. Otherwise in a large article it must be very difficult and you could end up making the thing clumsy and verbose, unnecessarily? 2829  VC 03:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"Unpatrolled log"
I often notice that you put for some new articles "Knock this out of the unpatrolled log" Which I also notice sometimes about every 12 hours a bunch of articles disapear from there. So what is that about? (That has caused a huge problem recently where it just seems like we just have unpatrolled from the past 24 hours due to the fact we have so many patrollers now!)

So why do you put that as well? Thanks!

Kamkek (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Awww okay thanks! Also what does happen to the pages that don't get patrolled that are less then a month old that dispear off the backlog?

Kamkek (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Maurice Mierau
Hey there, I just wanted to let you know, so you could hopefully stop the speedy deletion of the page. I am supposed to write a Wikipedia article for a University assignment so if you delete it then i would fail. I just wanted to start the page and there is going to be a lot more to add to it once our group starts work. Please revise the deletion because there is a lot of good information on the important author, Maurice Mierau. thanks and hopefully you can help.

Why speed deletion
Hi why speed deletion, this article is useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominiquewikki (talk • contribs)

ArbCom question to JJB
Are you JJB's deputy? If not, why did you reply to my question to him? I never said I wanted an immediate answer to his question, just that I wished to see one. Even if the question is public, keep your nose out of matters that don't concern you. Good day. →  Bre  nd an  11:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The least surprising topic ban violation in the world
Please review and, if so moved, comment at my enforcement request User talk:David in DC David in DC (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Another false accusation by David in DC. I was clearly editing last night census 2010 population counts, such as for San Antonio, Texas (1,327,407) or South Bend, Indiana (101,168). David in DC's false accusations went nowhere, but he needs to seriously disengage. At the ArbCom, there was also evidence presented about misbehavior by others (yes, that includes Brendanology) that was overlooked, but Brendanology is a 15-year-old kid; he'll learn. Less certain is whether David in DC will learn. The first rule for judges is that if they cannot be impartial, they should recuse themselves and let a third-party, neutral person be involved. It's more than clear that David in DC has a personal vendetta and should have long ago recused himself from this discussion. Ryoung 122  22:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Who deleted my page?!
You said you didn't delete my page, so who did??? Also, since you said that that anthem wasn't real, prove it! I can prove that the anthem of Buryatia was real!!! Get a Chinese Admin to go on that website ( http://www2.lidicity.com/flags/index2.html) and make him search for Buryatia!!! Humph! By gum, don't be such an #$$. P.S. Stop swearing.Brian Zhao 23:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YOPbottle (talk • contribs)

Oloyede
Not only is it spam, I've just added copyvio, like the other one from the same stable. Peridon (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You get to know the style - or perhaps it's because I write that I'm sensitive to styles. Also, as in this case, if they've done it once they'll do it twice... Peridon (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Royal Cruise Line
Most of your deletion nominations are very well considered, but this article did  indicatess very considerable importance, as a company operating multiple large cruise ships. That it's unref is a reason to add refs— and if one cannot find them, that's of course another matte. I think you may simply have been going too fast sometimes. I've been known to do  that myself  DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it didn't help that the creator was User:RoyalCruiseLine. Thanks for the note.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. They have already been given the necessary information about editing--but this is a much more straightforward article than the usual spam that is written in such circumstances, of which I have deleted literally thousands. COI makes it very difficult, but not impossible, to edit objectively.


 * On a related topic, when you remove a speedy tag, as you very correctly did at Pete Moore (composer), check to see if there's a hangon tag also, which of course must also be removed, for it continues to list the article for speedy deletion. . Beginners sometimes put it in odd places--in this case, it was at the bottom.   DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops; I usually remember to do that. In fact, last night I also found a redirect that for some reason was categorized under db-nonsense.  Thanks again.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 19:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Not true
You said there wasn't an anthem of Chechnya and Abkhasia. Actually, there is. Brian Zhao 16:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Now I understand. Brian Zhao 22:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YOPbottle (talk • contribs)

It's me again
Hi Blade, I'm attempting to delete 3 useless lists and I think I followed the instructions, but you may want to double check. Feel free to comment while you're there. Thank you. Articles for deletion/Shenzhen Stock Exchange/List of listed companies USchick (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link correction. I clearly remember taking the test in school, you know the one where you have to read, comprehend, and then follow instructions, but it wasn't in HTML! :) Also, feel free to disagree, I won't get upset. USchick (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Your AIV reporty on User:Keegan Lukaszuk (Prince Alex)
Hi, I left him a message and deleted the page. I hope we don't have to block them for that (IMO G11 is a bit far fetched, I stretched the policy a bit to delete these pages). -- Luk  talk 09:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

EARTHCORE
I didn't realise I violated any policies so I have been quick to remove those potential violations from the Earthcore talk page. So what's next re getting unblocked ? Fisted Rainbow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.221.57 (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I too have received a message from this user, and have replied at some length at User talk:Fisted Rainbow. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I will continue any discussion there. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Why were these deleted
I am quite new at posting on wikipedia, but my pages for the bands Rings of Saturn and Waking the Cadaver, both releasing albums on labels and both not on here, were deleted, when I thought i had put in some good work on them. Explanation please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickiscool96 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Prescribed senior official
Excuse me saying so, but adding a tag saying an article needs a clean-up and not saying how except pointing to the Talk page where the only post is my explanation of the source doesn't really help too much. Tell me what you think needs doing. Opbeith (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - these things happen! No problem, I can work on it myself if you're busy now I know what the issue is. I'm going to come back to it anyway, but I wanted to put up the basics up without too much delay after Srdja Trifkovic got turned back at Vancouver yesterday. Opbeith (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for pointing the way. While I've got your attention can I ask you about something that's just stumped me. Since I came here I seem to have lost my small font (that I was delighted to get when they made the changes a while back). Have you any idea how I can get it back? It's nice to have large legible type but I prefer to squeeze more on my page of display. Any advice appreciated. Opbeith (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry, I've come back here and the small font has returned. Best to pretend nothing happened. Thanks anyway! Opbeith (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Leather people
I've redirected it to Leather culture - not the same thing as the drivel posted, but a genuine place for the term. I'm surprised it hadn't already been created as a redirect. Keep up the good work. I see your name around a lot in my patrolling. Peridon (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sidi Fredj Halimi
Please read what I have written in the talk page of the article and take in mind that the article will be improved soon Saba50 (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Joy510
Hi The Blade of the Northern Lights,

This is the fifth time Joy510 has come back... different user name - same nonsense. Acabashi (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
Your conduct was more exemplary than mine, I should add. It was difficult being caught between your friend and the rest of the community, and you did it without alienating anyone. I wish the situation had ended better, but your esteem has definitely risen with me. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow ... fastest response I've ever gotten to a barnstar. Again, impressive. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

NPP
OMG did we clear NPP again? --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh oh...NPP is getting filled up again... --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

EASL article deletion
Thanks for getting back to me. I’ve been through and extensively edited the article in line with WP:NPOV and theEuropean Association for the Study of Diabetes’s article. I’ve saved the article at User:FabioMarra/EASL. It has not been my intention to promote or advertise EASL; I simply wanted to create an encyclopaedic article that people could use for reference. I’d value your feedback on the article, so that I can soon move it into the "article space".

FabioMarra (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi BNL! I'm not sending out thankspam to everyone, but I would like to personally thank  you for your support on  my  RfA and for the kind words. You have a clear understanding  of the principles on  which  the BLPROD was crafted, and whether some of the patrollers are doing  it  well or not, it  is one of the most  indispensable tasks at  Wikipedia. I hope that  you  will continue to  broadcast that message, which  you  put  across far more eloquently  than I  did. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fondazione Sigma-Tau & Claudio Cavazza
hi! excuse for my English but I am Italian and I am writing in a language that is not mine. I am making a search on the Sigma-Tau that is an international firm and on his/her president, I thought about making an useful thing to the information to make public that was cost to me so so much work to pick up considering that they seem me matters of public utility. make me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani23 (talk • contribs)

NE0N AfD
Hi. I noticed that you proposed that NE0N be deleted [ earlier]. WP:PROP has already been contested for this article, so we have a discussion at Articles for deletion/NE0N.&mdash;C45207 &#124; Talk 04:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 04:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Goodliffe's Abracadabra
Hi, I started this article to give the history of a magazine that is no longer published; however, you have marked it as advertising. The magazine ceased publication in March 2009, subscriptions are no longer available, so I am a bit confused as to the claim of advertising. It may be, having only just written the article, that for the moment I can't see the wood for the trees and if you could point out to me which areas are of concern so they can be corrected it would be of great help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B1964 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

All Saints Church, Fleet
Hi, just created this article. It would be really helpful if you could give some indication of the cleanup required. Although not a novice in terms of time on Wikipedia, I've never really mastered the finer points of style. Many thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Informality, eh. I've been accused of a number of vices whilst on Wikipedia but never that one before. Have endeavoured to posh it up a little. Seriously, would be most grateful for any assistance you were able to offer, on this or any other William Burges-related article I've contributed to. I'm ok on content, I think, but have never really cracked the style issues. As a possible incentive I see you're interested in Asian history and speak some Japanese. Josiah Conder, whom you may know as the father of modern Japanese architecture, was a pupil of Burges. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Transtorno bipolar
Just a courtesy note that I have declined your request to speedy delete Transtorno bipolar. CSD A9 does not apply, because Porta (rapper) has an article.

That said, the album fails WP:NALBUM, so I have turned it into a redirect to the artist's article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah; the link was broken, that's why I missed it. Thanks for cleaning up after me.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 21:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

one to delete
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CheckMyARMonline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.169.99 (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

CALDOL
I'm not seeing the copyvio problem in CALDOL The link http://www.caldol.net/ brings me to a site about biofuels, not a military leadership site.

What am I missing?-- SPhilbrick  T  23:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've also noticed a few other G12s you tagged recently: here and here. Maybe this is a good time to remind you that User:CorenSearchBot and User:VWBot are automated taggers and do generate false positives as well as finding copies of public domain material and other situations which can require some in-depth review. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know that; every once in a while, I forget to check. It's not typical; that's the exception, as my contributions will show.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 14:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of KingdomQuest
I saw that you informed me of the possible deletion of the said article. I don't want anything like that to happen. I will remove the template for now, giving the reason that I want time to improve. Could you give me tips on what I am missing out? Will be appreciated!Thanks!

Ossih (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Blade, this is my first time posting so I am sorry for any obvious ignorant mistakes. I was flagged up from the following copyright infringement but do you not think the two text versions have been changed enough?

From: - PLOT: Model and page three favorite Keeley Hazell thinks she's solved all her problems by taking up an unexpectedly high-brow hobby: translating Latin. The language has given her magical powers, enabling her to ward-off the frenzied attention of her adoring fans, and the British Library offers an ideal refuge from the hordes. But when she meets Adam, the one Sun-reader in the country she hadn't bargained for, Keeley is given a lesson in not judging books by their covers. Her journey of discovery will reveal just how far she's come to rely on the advantages of fame. A warped retelling of Ovid's most famous myth, Venus and Adonis, and a comic study of society's obsession with the image.

I then changed to: -	PLOT: Model and page three favorite Keeley Hazell plays herself as a model who is trying to escape from her hounding fans by seeking refuge translating latin in the British Library. She finds this new hobby gives her magical powers enabling her to ward off the unwanted attention she receives. She then meets Adam, one Sun-reader that turns her world upside-down. Keeley learns a valuable lesson that appearances can be deceiving. Her journey of discovery reveals the extent in which she yearns for exactly what she is trying to escape from. This film is a twisted retelling of Ovid's most famous myth, Venus and Adonis.

I thought they differed significantly enough. Apologies if not and I shall have to reword it further — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keelymad (talk • contribs) 11:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Kendall Marshall
Thanks for the prod and note on my talk page. Much appreciated! -Blueman33 (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

about "Yu A Popov" article
You've added "refimproveBLP" to the article. Here in Russia there is no much WhoIsWhos etc where you can find everyone catalogized. So what kind of reliable (=published?) source you mean for the article about a living person? See the Nomenclator Zoologicus for the list of genera described by YuAP (Popov & Hem) or named after him (both incomplete). --Prosbole (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello there Blade!
Hi there,

I wonder whether you can help me. I am creating a page about the composer Alexander Rudd. It is my first article so I am adding sources and references slowly. I have entered the name of the article 'Alexander rudd', please could you advise me on how I can correct it to "Alexander Rudd"?!! Johnholmes1981 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for reading and your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnholmes1981 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Web Medica Acreditada
I've added several references in this article so, Can we remove the warning about it needs "refimprove"? Thank you very much.--Mmayereng (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion
Hi Blade, This is a photo I nominated for deletion: File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg Files for deletion/2011 March 15 The discussion is happening here Non-free content review Can you offer any additional advice? USchick (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

NPP advice please?
Hiya, Following your comments at Village_pump_(miscellaneous) I've decided to try some new page patrolling. I've done a few today but am not sure in certain cases if I'm doing it right, so wondered if you'd be willing to mentor me a little?

Specifically, when marking pages as patrolled is it necessary to tag less urgent problems, (like orphan, reorganise, references are bare urls...) or is it okay to only tag pages for big problems (notability, advert, copyright etc.)? For example, this I tagged as needing a lead, but in retrospect feel that was a bit tag-happy, as it's pretty obvious anyway, and it seems quite picky to put the tag on a new article. Would it have been ok to just mark that page as patrolled without tagging?

Cheers, --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks. Question 2: when I first go to the article from special:new pages there's a "Mark page as patrolled" box in the bottom right hand corner. But it seems once I make an edit, the box disappears, so I can't mark it as patrolled after I've tagged it. Is there a way around this? Or should I mark it as patrolled before tagging?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Cheers, I think I'm starting to get the hang of it, going slowly through them. Feel free to critique any of my contributions. What tools do you use when you're new page patrolling? I've started using twinkle.
 * I'm not sure what to do about this article - would you leave it or nominate it for deletion? It only has an infobox and no references, but might well be notable.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, as there's references available from google, I think I'll just improve that one myself.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Me again. I found a situation where db-unpatrolled was needed, now your explanation makes sense! :) I've been noticing a tonne of pages which have already been tagged for improvement or deletion, but not marked as page patrolled - it seems if we could get people to mark them it would nearly halve the workload. Do we know why the pages aren't getting marked? --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

MANHATTAN Personal Computing Products Speedy Delete?
The wiki page for MANHATTAN Personal Computing Products should not be deleted. The style, content and objectivity is similar to wiki pages for Logitech International SA, Targus Corporation, KYE Systems Corporation or other similar brands. If MANHATTAN is deleted so should Logitech, Targus, KYE and other brands. Msmith43 (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Msmith43

Something weird about Soewinhan...
OK, I'm in kind of a weird situation here and didn't know exactly what to do, but I noticed you've been commenting in User:Soewinhan's ANI, and this relates to him.

A little bit of backstory: today I've been doing some work with removing/commenting out non-free images outside of article space, per WP:NFCC. Some of the pages I came across was User:Hybernator/test and User:Hybernator/test2, a user I've never before come in contact with. Shortly after (less than an hour later), I got this message on my talk page from Soewinhan, asking me to review Prehistory of Burma. As I've never come in contact with him before and have never edited any articles relating to either Burma or prehistory at all, I was quite confused. At first I thought Soewinhan might have accidentally posted on my talk page instead of someone else's, but as I dug around I happened to come across the ANI... where I discovered mentions of Hybernator.

Now you tell me, what are the odds that this is all just a coincidence? I'm not sure if this proves anything (it's certainly not conclusive evidence that Hybernator and Soewinhan are connected) so I didn't want to post it in the ANI, but... I feel like someone involved should know about it. (also posted on User talk:Okkar) Fletch the Mighty (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Rollback
I would like you to give assistance now that I have rollback back.  Wayne  Slam 17:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Denver Gem & Mineral Show
Why did you delete the piece on the Denver Gem & Mineral Show?

It's a major annual event that's been running in Denver for over 40 years. Not only is it not-for-profit, but it's the second-largest event of this type in the US, one of the largest in the world. People come from all over the world, not just to buy and sell (not that there's anything wrong with that), but for other activities including museum exhibits, lectures, and meetings of local, regional, national, and international organizations.

There are gem and mineral shows and clubs all over the world. When I wrote the piece I tried to place it in the context of gem & mineral shows in general (including links to other shows), and the shows relationship to local geologists, rockhounds, and rock clubs, including links to organizations not affiliated with the Greater Denver Area Gem and Mineral Council and its member clubs.

Wikipedia already contains a few articles on other gem and mineral shows,including the Tucson Show, the Munich Show, and the Sainte-Marie-aux-Mines Show.

The deletion seems especially odd since there's an article about the Denver Coliseum Mineral, Fossil, Gem, and Jewelry Show, an entirely commercial venture (not that there's anything wrong with that) established two years ago by a local entrepreneur, Lowell Carhart, who has been running all sorts of deliberately misleading advertising (and there's something very wrong with that) implying that he is somehow affiliated with the Denver Show. His article is continuing that practice. I edited out the most egregious falsehoods several months ago when I found the article, but some of it's back in claims that are sort-of true, but worded to be misleading. If you look at the article's references, veery single one is to an advertisement Carhart or one of his employees placed.

I'd be happy to rewrite the piece if you can tell me what you found objectionable, but I think the deletion was completely unwarranted.

Eepstein (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Denver Gem & Mineral Show reply
Yeah, I know this is clunky but how to reply to a message isn't all that clear and the help screens aren't all that helpful.

So, I take it no copy of the article remains anywhere? I'd be happy to reconstruct it in the sandbox for your review, if i had any confidence that it would work. When I originally wrote it, I saved it in the sandbox, and when I came back to work on it, the damn thing had disappeared. I couldn't find it anywhere, and I had to start over from scratch. Is there a trick to doing this? Eepstein (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Albert Verrecchia
You requested a speedy deletion of Albert Verrecchia, which I have declined. The subject is a member of a notable group, which fulfills the requirements for notability. There was significant work done to the article after you requested the speedy, which led me to realize that it had existed for only fourteen minutes when you requested the speedy. Perhaps you should give them a bit more time to become familiar with our policies and offer to help them fix it? I'm afraid you're going a little too fast, and may be requesting speedies that are not correct. This is the second one I've seen from you in the recent past. - Philippe 23:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)