User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights/Archive 5

Denied CSD Proposals
Hello Blade, I'm back from an extended Wikibreak and am (not) surprised to see people at WT:CSD rehashing old arguments. So, I created a page in my userspace, User:Fiftytwo thirty/Denied CSD Proposals, in order to track the commonly rejected proposals by category & reason. I plan to post this to WT:CSD in a little while, for I think it will be helpful, but I wanted to ask you for your input. You have been here longer than I have and have participated in way more of these types of discussions, so I was wondering if there are any more discussions, categories, or other content that nees to be added to the page. I have gone back over 2 1/2 years and 12 archives. If you want to make a change, go ahead and edit, I don't mind people meddling in my userspace as long as they are not vandalizing it. Thanks for your input and have a good night. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look over the next day or so. At a quick glance, I like what I'm seeing. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 23:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Blade, if you have a moment  could you  please check this out. More info on  its tp. Cheers. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to  these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising  the project  pages, researching  statistics and keeping  them  up  to  date. You'll also see for example that  we have recently  made tables to  compare how other Wikipedias choose  their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on  specific issues of our  admin  selection  process and to develop  RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that  all Wikipedia policy changes take a long  time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to  be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not  to make it  either  easier or harder to  become an admin -  those criteria are set by  those who  !vote at  each  RfA. By providing  a unique venue for developing ideas for  change independent  of  the general discussion  at  WT:RFA, the project has two  clearly  defined goals: The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project  pages to  suggest  and discuss ideas that are not  strictly  within  the remit  of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they  will  offer maximum exposure to  the broader community, rather than individual  projects in  user space.
 * 1) Improving the environment  that  surrounds RfA in  order to  encourage mature, experienced editors of the right  calibre to  come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their  time to  admin  tasks.
 * 2) Discouraging, in the nicest  way  possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to  guide them towards the advice pages.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in  order to  build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any  editors are always welcome on  the project's various talk  pages. The main reasons  why  WT:RfA was never successful in  getting  anything  done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody  remembers them and where they  are hard to  find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on  the founder's talk  page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 16:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Contested deletion
I do not know the appropriate way, so please forgive my doing this, to post a request that you not remove my article (Songcat: B. Hall, which shd be called B. Hall or Barbara Hall by Songcat. She is a real person, a cartoonist, and has had plenty of press (See The Great Women Cartoonists by Trina Robbins, Workman, 2008). I would like to ask you to put my article back. I ask you courteously. Thanks. 	I. McFarlin Songcat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Songcat (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your note and information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Songcat (talk • contribs) 22:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing Sections of Murrow Center for Media and Health Promotion
With all due respect to you and your work with Wikipedia, please understand what can be copyrighted and what cant and the difference between sources and content. You edited out parts of the page with the reason: 05:23, 27 September 2011 The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk | contribs) (1,357 bytes) (Rm copyvio of http://communication.wsu.edu/mcmhp/mcmhp.htm; DO NOT RESTORE) (undo). The fact is that the information you edited out (reference lists of work, members of the center and types of facilities) are commonly known facts about the center and are not covered by copyrights and the information provided is also taken from multiple sources (cited works list). Additionally, why did you delete the membership information? All the members are nationally and internationally known scholars with terminal degrees and are formally associated with the center. I authored this and I am an expert on health communication and the center. You and all the other editors need to consider what you do before you do it and the time it takes to correct your arbitrary keystrokes.

Ericwilliamh (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)EricwilliamhEricwilliamh (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Screencast for new NPP tool design?
Hi, Blade. It's raindrift (Ian Baker) from WMF.

Ostensibly, this message is to ask you to do a screencast for us. Really, though, I want to take a moment to say thanks for participating in the current Zoom Interface discussion and everything that came before it. This conversation started in what is perhaps the worst possible way, so I'm glad to have the opportunity to work together with you on solving the problems we're facing.

Anyway, here's the message I sent out to a few of the more prolific NPPers on enwiki. If you could help out, that'd be awesome. If not, but you know of any other people whose input would be of value, please do let me know.

Thanks again! (pre-recorded message follows)

I'm contacting you because, according to our statistics, you're a particularly active New Page Patroller on the English Wikipedia. Here at the WMF, we're working on a design for a much-improved NPP user interface. We hope that it will (as part of a larger strategy) address many outstanding issues in the article creation process, while also providing a more modern, streamlined and efficient UX for patrollers.

To do this successfully, we are relying upon the guidance of our most experienced patrollers. I'm sending this message to the ten most prolific patrollers in 2011, and a few other people who've been participating actively in this discussion.

Specifically, I'm hoping you can take a few minutes to record a screencast of yourself doing NPP. We're looking for a 10-15 minute session, but more is okay if you feel it's needed. Ideally, you'd first walk us through your process, explaining as you go, and then switch to doing NPP at your usual pace.

Our preliminary examination of this feature has shown that many experienced patrollers have evolved their own specially-tailored interface and workflow, often using external tools and plugins. Making an interface that works well will require understanding those tools and the motivation for using them. However, even if you haven't done that, observing your NPP technique will still be valuable, giving us insights into what factors inform your judgement, how you use the existing interface, and how long NPP generally takes an expert patroller such as yourself.

If you'd like to help, great! I've posted a set of instructions over at the relevant  thread on the Article Creation Workflow talk page, which should get you everything you need to know. If something's missing or you have a question, post it there. That's also the place to go if you want to learn more about the reasoning behind this request.

I understand that people have differing expectations of privacy with regard to their own computer and voice. Therefore, you can either post this screencast publicly (place a link in the talk page above) or if you'd prefer, send it to me privately at ian@wikimedia.org.

Of course, any other input on this feature that you’d like to provide is also welcome. Don't hesitate to get involved in the discussion on the above-linked talk page, or contact me personally. I'd love to hear from you.

Thanks! raindrift (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If I can figure out how to get the right software (I'm on a PC), I'd be happy to. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 02:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Rejected Greedy Spiders
Hello sir again. There is one more review I found (this one I found over Google News, which is as close to a newspaper article as I could get), I'm not sure if there are articles about games that don't have cult status (yet). Also, I'm not sure if a review can be counted as an "article about the game". Would it help, to add this article? As for the reviews already in the article, I've seen each of the sources, except for "AppStore Bite", in some live Wikipedia articles, so Wikipedia might consider those review sites reliable. AppStore Bite is the only review of the iPhone version I found, but I might remove it, since the Android and iOS versions are pretty much completely the same. As for the FB links, I think it might fall into: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves", which is stated and explained further here. The fact they link that FB group from the game's homepage might be a proof the FB group is genuine. I'm sorry for keeping on annoying you, but I received several advices that slightly contradicted each other, so I really need to figure this out with one reviewer, I guess.
 * Okay, and if the information about the game's programming, as such, is NOT anywhere else on the web than FB, should I remove the information about the game's programming? As I really can't supply any other source for that... As for the reviews and alerts, I think five reviews and link to sales info should be enough to acknowledge the game exists and deserves an article... Am I wrong?
 * I understand, the game's influence isn't big enough (yet). I added one more review and slightly reformatted the review part and I will try to wait some more time to see if the game will continue in its quite impressive start (million people in two months of existence really doesn't seem that bad, 600 000 on Android Market only), or will become just a short-time phenomenon. Hopefully a last question on that subject, how long will the article stay in Articles for Creation, as NOT pending for approval, before it gets autodeleted?

Myyysha (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Article Copyright Issue
Hello I appreciate you information actually alot of your posts are helpful as I am new to Wiki I re-submitted and made the changes in the first paragraph and through out that was similar to the imdb page you stated. I think all should be good in the article, I appreciate any feedback. Thanks Have a nice day! PS I love the Asian culture as well much appreciation for the food, serenity and art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dollsandguys (talk • contribs) 07:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

already exists?
Can you explain this edit? (I already informed user:Oo7565 before you declined it). Please recheck your reason! mabdul 10:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's me being up a little late last night; the Yankees played into the 13th, and I probably lost focus. Let me rectify that now. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 13:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Inflammatory Rhetoric??
Regarding - ReFirst of all, you would do well to tone done the inflammatory rhetoric, such as that on my talkpage. Secondly, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously; we don't mess around with that, and if the removed content was the only content it would have been deleted as a copyright violation. It was copied and pasted directly from the website, which is not allowed. I'm not the greatest expert on copyright (that would be User:Moonriddengirl), but I'd rather err on the side of caution. If it was a mistake, that's fine with me, but I'd rather be castigated for that then not removing something that later turned out to be a copyright violation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC

I apologize if you found my straight talk to be "inflammatory rhetoric". What the editors of Wikipedia fail to grasp is that the editorial system is completely broken. You are not the first editor to express their opinion on my submissions...there have been multiple editors with multiple opinions about my username, topic, content, copyright, etc. What I have found is that editors take the viewpoint that everyone is guilty until proven innocent and often enough violate Wikipedia's own rules. The content you speak of was not cut and pasted from the WSU website....this material is a reference list of work completed by the members of the center. It is available in multiple forms and from multiple sources (multiple websites and portals, print material, biographies, etc)...this information can’t be copyrighted. What I find disconcerting is the fact that editors without full knowledge of the content or the rules governing copyright, content, etc. make editorial changes. If an editor is not fully knowledgeable they should not make the change...they should seek help from those knowledgeable or better yet ask the author of the content. The process of getting content added to Wikipedia and the editorial process needs to be seriously examined by people who appreciate the time and resource pressures people are under today. It takes time to respond to the numerous deletions and edits...

Ericwilliamh (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)EricwilliamhEricwilliamh (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:Update/1/Deletion policy changes, 2011
You did the changes to WP:CSD last quarter, in case you're interested in doing them again. - Dank (push to talk) 00:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny you should mention that, I was just thinking about that. I'll see if I can get that taken care of sometime tonight.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 00:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 00:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for undoing the image :) - Dank (push to talk) 01:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
{{talkback|Kudpung|ts=04:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)}

How to insert protection in a page?
Can you help me by telling how to insert a protection in a page? Please reply.Dipankan001 (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:RPP. Calabe1992 (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

New unreferenced BLP's
If you add User:AlexNewArtBot/URBLPNTSearchResult to yout eatchlist and check it when it refreshs you'll be able to find newly created unreferenced BLP's. I've been perfecting the process for over a year now and it's pretty good at finding new onea even though many are false positives. I'm intending to move onto other things at the moment and would be happy if you are others check it out. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds interesting to me. Thanks. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

blood type (random chatter)
Saw your edit summary wondering what the deal was with the inclusion of blood type, turns out, it's ... well, we have an article on it with reference to Japan, although I've mostly run into it from Chinese culture myself. For example, I've heard people say the equivalent of "You're just saying that because you're type B." Thought you might be amused or whatever, have a great day! :)  --joe deckertalk to me 15:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've vaguely heard about this before, but the article was rather informative. Thanks for pointing me to it; I didn't realize that stuff was still in vogue over there (it's mentioned in history books), but I always thought it had pretty much died out in the last 150 years or so. Always neat to learn something new.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 15:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The amazing Junior Rodriguez
While I agree that the article's a mess, it's got a modest assertion of notability that I'm not convinced I believe, but can't quite db-band it. I've tagged the snot out of it and BLP prodded it instead. I think my move to a less eye-watering title borked your deletion tag.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would explain it. I saw "edit conflict detected", and my computer decided to seize up for a minute, which is why I didn't respond too quickly.  I'll monitor it. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 01:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

RFA.
So when you gunna run for adminship? You scared or something? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.167.133.100 (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think  Blade of all  people will  have his own very  good reasons for not  wanting  to  run  for RfA. But  certainly  an editor  who  is fully  qualified. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Experienced Editor
I added a service badge to your user page, I hope that's alright. I do that sometimes. Slight Smile  23:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine with me; I'll move it to a subpage of mine, but thank you for doing it. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Tom Filer
Those are not sources, they're References. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mix the two up when I'm late at night every so often. Mea culpa The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 21:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

World XI FC
Claims that people are notable surely would fall under BLP? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Were it up to me, yes, but there are other people who want it defined the narrowest possible way; nevertheless, it's PRODded, which will actually knock it out quicker. I'll monitor it, and if it's contested I'll take it to AfD. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 21:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never found prod to be worthwhile, since they almost always wind up at AFD anyway. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

World's Tallest Men
Some people think Wikipedia is a place to spout opinions and make fun of others. Others realize that Wikipedia is supposed to be an objective encyclopedia and a place where collaborative, cooperative editing is done. I'm going to try to follow the latter ideal rather than the former.

While few persons would think being tall is bad, being "too tall" is bad for humans:

http://www.oneinchpunch.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/worlds-tallest-man.jpg

And concerning the "world's tallest persons," many have had operations to reduce or limit further growth:

http://www.elekta.com/healthcare_international_press_release_20071092.php

So, while others, uninformed, make fun of people, it would do everyone on Wikipedia well to do some independent fact-checking before engaging in the kind of tribal kill that leads to mistakes like the Salem Witchcraft Trials or, some would argue, executing innocent men on death row. Think about it. Ryoung 122 22:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I might add that being "too tall" is good for getting in the Guinness World Records. But sideshows aside... Ryoung 122 22:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Blade: FYI EEng (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Mitya Fomin
I saw you added a BLPPROD tag to Mitya Fomin. FYI... they changed the requirements on BLPPRODs a few weeks back. They removed "reliable" from the requirements. Mitya Fomin had a ref from IMDb and thus shouldn't have been tagged according to the updated definition. Personally I don't like it.... Bgwhite (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh. When I clicked on the link my computer gave me a message saying it couldn't load it; I occasionally forget it gives me the same message when I lose my connection as it does when the page doesn't exist.  I'm no fan of the change either, but I still do it for Facebook or the equivalent (even some of the hardliners will let that go).  Hopefully people will come to their senses; I get the sense that the people who hang around the deletion policies are a lot more conservative about this than the community at large. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 06:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

uw templates
Can I just  run  this past  you  and get  your opinion  as to  whether I  really  am  barking  up  the wrong  tree? Looks to me again  like comments from  people who  have never seen what  we get  for new 'articles'. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. Perhaps they should try actually listening to us this time.  Or alternatively, I can go out to Hungary for the open-source convention and they can spend 5 hours cleaning up. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They won't  ever listen  to  the empirical  experience of those who  really  know -  the actual  team  in  the office (if you  cut out  the  clerks and coffee makers) is too  small - so  all  they  want  is stats, stats, stats. There is one comment,  buried somewhere, coming  right  from  the top, which  clearly  comes across as '"BS -  give us stats to  prove it." --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Dead link BLPs
Greetings! Just wondering about this. Do we still assume that an article has a reference even when the only reference listed is a dead link? I was actually aiming for BLP sources with this one... until I discovered that the link was a dud. -- WikHead (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd BLPPROD it, since if the link doesn't work it means there isn't any way to verify it's actually a source. The idea is to have at least one reference so you can verify something; if you can't check it, you can't verify it, so it's as good as having nothing at all. Just my take.  I was having a bit of an off-night last night, feel free to whack me with a trout if I do that again. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 11:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, verifiability is the key issue indeed. I wanted to run it past you before reverting your change though... because the change has caused me to second guess myself, and question whether there may be a loophole involved with simply calling an unverifiable spade a spade in dead-link circumstances. I believe this article predates the BLP PROD rule, so I think it's best that I restore the unreferencedBLP tag, as it will stand a better chance of being addressed much more quickly that way. On another note, I see you around a lot... and it has been a pleasure to finally say "hi". :) All the best to you, happy editing! -- WikHead (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom mention
I have used diffs of your posts in an arbcom request filed at Arbitration/Requests/Case.

You are not listed as a party, and I have only used the diffs as examples of particular discursive moves. This notice is purely for your own information. -- Ludwigs 2 03:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Adminship
I see that you're going to make a good admin.I have nominated you for RfA.Please click here to go to your nomination page.Dipankan001 (talk) 06:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nom, but I need to wait a couple weeks. K'm hitting a pretty crazy time in real life, and I just won't have the time until early November.  Keep an eye out, though.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 13:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The entry needs to  be deleted, you'd best  do  it  yourself :)  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Improving new page patrol
Hey TBOTNL! A bot is going to go around and tell you this later, but given our discussion a few weeks back about how you could help improve the new page patrol experience, I thought I'd reach out personally and drop you a note. Kudpung, with the help of the staffers and myself, has written up a survey to help us get data on new page patrollers in order to determine what the techs can do to fix the interface (amongst other things). If you'd fill it out, I'd be very grateful - it can be found here. Cheers in advance, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I'll have to do that, sometime tonight I hope. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 02:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry about  attacking  your tp  but  this survey  has not  been released by  our legal  department  yet. You  will  be receiving  a bot  message as soon  as the live version  of the survey  is available. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is what happens when I type on phones; my intent is to look it over (in its draft form). I realize that was bad wording choice on my part. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 02:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, TBOTNL, miscommunication; the survey is cleared :). Thanks in advance! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Blade, my fault, there is no reason why  you should not have been invited to check out the final draft of the survey, your particular experience on these issues is especially needed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Extending a Shark Fin
Sorry, no Olive Branch Here, would a shark fin do?

Just kidding. I actually appreciate your recent comments and it seems that you have, for the most part, been more conscientious/fair in recent editing. I really have a problem with the "situation" exacerbated by EEing. I am just flabbergasted at how quickly he blew things up by dredging up the past, right when I was trying to make amends. If that's not unfortunately throwing flames on a fire that should have been out, I don't know what would be. In any case, we need the flames of conflict resolved, but it will take some West-Coast cool to do it. Perhaps you could be a mediator. I don't even want to talk to EEing. I want him to leave me alone, and stop being a mosquito.

And for short/tall: height has its advantages (basketball, anyone?) but being normal-to-short has advantages as well, like being able to walk in Buddhist temple doorways in China. Well, maybe not. I went to China and some of the temple doorways there are about 4 feet six inches tall, more reflective of the heights of people from 1,000 years ago in China than today.

Have a nice day. Ryoung 122 07:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll write a longer response when I can use a full keyboard, but for now I'll say 2 things; 1 I agree a more cordial approach from all sides (me included) will help and 2. I had a similar experience in Scotland; all the doors there seem to be 5'6" or 6', so both times I came home with a rather bruised forehead. I wonder if my bursts of eccentricity around those times are connected... The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 16:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Frank M. Stammers
Stammers is most likely dead (he was active in the 1910s and 1920s), so the BLP rule would not apply. As the original director of a notable play by a notable author, he has some notability, even though it is difficult to find information about him.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Vidyalaya Higher Secondary School
Hi Blade, you recently put a CSD tag on Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Vidyalaya Higher Secondary School

I think, with some work, this article could conform to our policies and guidelines.

Obviously in its present condition it is far from it. It needs rewriting and proper referencing.

I've advised the author that it might be a good idea to move the article to userspace and to work on it there.

Could I persuade you to maybe reconsider on the CSD for the time being?

Kind Regards -- Marek. 69  talk  22:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Update on IEP
In case you are not informed, the following is a link to the complete list of students of the IEP. Debastein1 (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * India Education Program/Students

IEP clean up
Hi. If you are working  on  IEP  clean up, for easy  checking  and follow up  of students and their articles, please see:

IEP student and article lists and how to use them

If you are not  working  on  this clean  up,  please pass this message along  to  anyone you  know who is. Thanks, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll try to put in some time later today.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 13:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Alex Niven (writer)
Hi Blade. I saw that you removed the BLPPROD from Alex Niven (writer). I don't believe that any of the sources included are reliable. They include blogs, the subject's own writings, and two biographies hosted by employers of the subject. Pburka (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to your judgment with what to do here. If you want to restore it I won't object.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 14:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Amy LaVere
Hi,

I noticed you changed my temp here from "BLP no references or sources" to "BLP Additional citations needed". As there isn't a ref section and no inline citations I believe the one I added more appropriate. External links are just that (effectively, interesting further reading), even though there might be something there that could support the text, and which could be converted into inlines. Sources or Footnotes (as a specific sections, and often published text) are often seen as not inlined (but should be) but indicate that the text is taken from reliable sources - appearing to me then a halfway between a directly supporting inline ref and an external link. Unfortunately, WP doesn't seem to have a special "No footnotes" temp for BLPs, acknowledging sources and external links but pointing out no inline cites - I might very well be wrong here. But the article doesn't need additional inlines because it hasn't any in the first place. Can you give your observations on this ? Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's anything to you, I'm just as confused as you as to what the policy on this is at the moment. There's a discussion at WT:BLPPROD now on what's basically this issue, albeit with newer articles than this.  I personally think we need to be a lot more willing to BLPPROD articles than we are now, but I'm trying to follow what I can make of the consensus.  However, though my reading comprehension is extremely good, I've misinterpreted things in the past.  On this particular issue, we've hit kind of a gray area; for me, it depends on how relevant the EL is to the subject, and whether or not it falls under SPS (although with MySpace or the equivalent, I'll just BLPPROD it because it's far easier to get an impostor account on those sites than it is to set up an impersonation URL). I'll defer to your judgment on what you want to do with this.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 00:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * She's not one for a PROD - definitively notable - heard her last night on BBC Radio 4 :) Added a ref that makes sense of your replaced temp so we'll leave it as it is. There's probably more stuff - added a "Find sources" on the Talk page. Best wishes. Acabashi (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. I'll see if I can't pitch in sometime over the next couple days myself.  See you around! The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 01:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Many many thanks for saving my article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sexymax15

WP:UWTEST members update
Hi, you're getting this message because you signed up to receive updates at WP:UWTEST, the task force on testing of user warnings and other notifications.

Here's what we're up to lately:


 * Huggle: There are tests still running in Huggle of level 1 templates, including a new template written by DGG. A full list is available here
 * SDPatrolBot: There is a new test running on the talk page messages of SDPatrolBot, which warns people who remove CSD templates. (Documentation of the test is here.)
 * Twinkle: We've proposed a test of AFD and PROD notifications delivered via Twinkle, which has been positively received. (See: 1, 2) This test should start this week.
 * Shared and dynamic IPs: Maryana's proposal to test the effect of regularly archiving shared/dynamic IP talk pages is in its final stages. There are also two relevant bot flag requests: 1, 2
 * XLinkBot: the herders of XLinkBot have approved a test of its warning messages concerning external links. Test templates are being written and help is most welcome.

Thanks for your help and support, Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   02:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts?
Can I ask your opinion about this? Talk:Muhammad/images --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

International Wooden Shoe Museum Eelde
Hello Blade of the Northern Lights,

I see you put a notability tag to the newly created page. I hope you can advise me what kind of secondary links are suitable and how to place annotation on the page.

I Googled a bit. There are not many English weblinks. But what about this one? Wrtingtravellers Here they talk about one of the greatest collections in Europe.

I further found two Dutch links. One providing touristic information of the county where the museum can be found. It states that they have the biggest collection in the world. On the website they use the name: Wooden Shoe Museum Wietzes Brothers Eelde. As I understand the website of the Wooden Shoe Museum, they changed their name.

The other Dutch link I found is from the website dagje weg (day out) It is a populair national touristic website. It also states they have the largest collection in the world.

What do you think?

Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Blade of the Northern Lights, Thanks for the answer at my own userpage. I take a further look at it tomorrow. Kind regrads, Berkh (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Blade of the Northern Lights. I added several reference. I hope this is enough. Otherwise let me know. I removed the tags. Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Anal sex article
As I stated in this edit summary, "canard" was not a POV issue. It's just another way of saying that this is an "untruth," as reported by the sources. I didn't revert you, however. I replaced "canard" with "misconception," which had been in place of the word before. Then I decided to remove "misconception," since it's already mentioned and is therefore redundant to state again. "Canard" had been there because it was recently added by an editor, so that there wouldn't be the redundancy of the word "misconception."

As a female who has studied this topic and other sexual topics extensively, it's definitely one of those misconceptions that always has to be dispelled. So why did you take "canard" to be a POV issue, when it is an accurate description of the belief that anal sex is almost exclusively or only practiced by gay men? Flyer22 (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was a little terse, because I was on my iPhone (which I try to avoid, but sometimes); in hindsight, just replacing it with misconception would have been a good idea.  At least here in New England, canard carries a negative connotation with it which implies a judgment value, so perhaps it's just another example of English dividing us more than uniting us.  Thanks for cleaning up after me; I shall take your advice on board. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 02:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you for explaining. I understand your having changed it. It's better without having "misconception" (or something close to that) a second time, so I thank you for having made that edit. Flyer22 (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

References in Thomas Rau
Hello! I see that you removed the "unreferenced BLP" tag from the article Thomas Rau, saying that it "has references". But does it? It has some external links (all self-referential) but nothing cited in text as a reference. Do external links count as references for BLP purposes? I'm asking, not arguing - I don't know what the policy is. Thanks and happy Thanksgiving! --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll recheck it when I get home in a few hours; the policy around this is extremely confused at the moment, so I'll do a thorough look when I can use something better than my iPhone. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * After looking it over, I think 1. you're right to AfD it, and that 2. I personally think those links aren't real references, but there are those who do. I'm kinda feeling it out a bit, and I too am a bit confused as to what the policy is on this, so if you ever disagree with something I do in this area you can reverse it. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 01:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Since it seemed to be kind of a gray area I figured AfD was the way to go, rather than prodding it at unreferenced. I do think that I have seen articles at Category:Unreferenced BLPs that contained external links but got tagged as unreferenced. I guess it's not a settled thing. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted this issue as a question here Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. The respondent agrees with you: external links DO count as references for BLP purposes. Now I know. This article certainly is a candidate for deletion - all the links are self-referential and I can't find any evidence of notability - but it's not an unreferenced BLP. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)