User talk:Thparkth/Archives/2010/May

Problematic user ܥܝܪܐܩ
User ܥܝܪܐܩ appeared on wikipedia less than two months ago, yet he is since then busy pushing for his ideological "anti-assyrianist" agenda by igniting edit wars and vandalizing numerous Iraq- or Assyrian-related articles. Have a look at the edits history of e.g. Assyrian Evangelical Church‎, Assyrian Patriotic Party, Assyrian Socialist Party or any other "contribution" User ܥܝܪܐܩ.‎ I think an administrator should intervene not only on one or another edit, but more generally on the mala fide practices of User ܥܝܪܐܩ, one of which is deleting large parts of a stub, including its bibliography, then asking for the speedy deletion of the remaining one-sentence article. Such people make wikipedia a quite inhospitable place and put the whole project at risk of becoming a mere battleground for activists of various species. --Pylambert (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with applying rigorous scrutiny to nationalist articles. There is however something very wrong with making numerous personal attacks: , restoring abuse to peoples' talk pages:    , refusing to discuss anything on article talk pages, and canvassing for admins:    . ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the practice of deleting most of the content from articles, then nominating them for speedy deletion for having no content, is a little surprising. Be aware that administrators are supposed to check the article history before carrying out the delete, and they will likely decline the speedy deletion if they see this is going on. However you don't have to be an admin to remove speedy deletion tags from articles - if you see one that is clearly abusive, feel free to remove it and state the reason why. Thparkth (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyway, User ܥܝܪܐܩ has inbetween been indefinitely suspended for sockpuppetry. --Pylambert (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving articles & fixing links
Would you kindly reply to my questions to you here so that I will be less confused about all that? Or who could reply? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Thparkth
Well said. Sadly, WMC and SV have been sparing for years. They seem to enjoy it. Cheers, Ben Aveling 12:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In this case he does seem to be getting picked on unfairly... Thparkth (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, but it is complicated. There are some open wounds and unresolved issues floating around. Neither 'side' really seems to have a problem with that, so any new grievance draws every old grievance. Cheers, Ben Aveling 11:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Frog Images
What needs deleting is NOT the image, but the local description page, The actual image 'shows thru' from Commons along with the Commons description page.

What needs 'deletion' is the local (i.e at enwiki) description page as opposed to the image( which is actually on Commons)

TWINKLE implies this situation is covered by CSD F2, although I've been told since that the actualy policy might be different.

I had been using G6 to tag images like the Frog ones, but had been told (wrongly it seems) to use F2 (based on it's apparent older wording.)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Kia Ray
Hi, I noticed that you removed the "Speedy delete" tag from Kia Ray. I had moved the article from Car Configurator to its current name, which is the name of the car. Do you think the redirect Car Configurator should be deleted? I can't think of a reason to connect the two titles. Thanks, Xtzou ( Talk ) 18:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any obvious connection either. Nothing seems to link to "car configurator" in any case. I've added a "housekeeping" delete request to "Car Configurator" - feel free to remove it if you have any doubt about deleting it :) Thparkth (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are right. Thanks for adding the "housekeeping" delete request. Best wishes, Xtzou ( Talk ) 18:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

How I Wonder What You Are
Hi please refer the link.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%22how_i_wonder_what_You_Are&action=edit&redlink=

and it was deleted article previously ""how i wonder what You Are" ‎ I am conciser to delete again. because it is self promotional article and non encyclopedic  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wipeouting (talk • contribs) 18:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I do not agree that the article is excessively promotional, so I will remove your speedy tags again. Please do not re-add them - speedy deletion is only for entirely non-controversial deletions. The deletion history you linked to seems odd and is not persuasive. Cheers! Thparkth (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The deletion history is as follows: At first someone made an article that copied Shutter Island and it got deleted (A10)
 * Then the first version of the current article was written, but I moved it as the title was not MOS/WP:TITLE compliant. Then I nominated the redirect for deletion as it was an implausible typo. AniMate deleted it, but I don't know why G4 was used as well, as I couldn't find a previous AfD for the article. Wipeouting seems to be on a CSD/PROD spree nominating several Sri-Lankan (sp?) articles for deletion on notability grounds. Jarkeld (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing it up. It's a tangled web! I'm pretty sure that when AniMate speedied it, it was tagged for R3 (Recently-created, implausible redirect) as well as for G4 - the R3 was arguably valid, so that's probably why it was deleted. Of course none of that affects the worthiness of the current article with the correct name that you gave it! Thparkth (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion for Jur P. van den Berg
Hi I noticed that you have been removing requests for deleting this page Jur P. van den Berg. This article does not provide any reference to the biography of the person, is about a living person and is self promoting and simply looks like an advertisement to find an academic job. I would appreciate it if you either provide more details and refrences or stop removing the tag or just please use the hangon tag instead of removing it and let others participate in the discussion.

Please tell us why you think that article is notable (in that person's discussion page Jur P. van den Berg) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.171.248 (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * Thank you for your note. I think you may be labouring under a misunderstanding about how the deletion process works. The deletion tags in question were speedy deletion tags. Any editor other than the article creator may remove speedy deletion tags - without discussion - if they disagree with them. In this case, the tags used were clearly invalid - the reason given for speedy deletion was not in fact a valid speedy deletion reason at all, per WP:CSD. Not only did I disagree with the tags procedurally, but I disagreed with the intent of the tags too - I think there is a decent chance that the subject of the article is notable, as he appears to be a university professor, and he is also quite widely cited in scholarly papers. Per WP:OUTCOMES it is quite possible that the article would survive a WP:AFD discussion.
 * Please understand that speedy deletion is only for entirely uncontroversial deletions where there is no real doubt about whether the deletion should occur or not. The fact that I, as an uninvolved editor, have removed the tags should tell you that there is at least some doubt. You should not re-add the same speedy deletion tags in this situation. Instead you should use WP:PROD or WP:AFD which are both the correct venue for the kind of concerns you have about the article.
 * Cheers,
 * Thparkth (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for the explanation, the person seems to be a graduate student or a staff member. His name does not appear as a faculty member at that university and his contributions do not seem to be notable notable. (I am a researcher in computational geometry) His papers are interesting but nothing beyond what a graduate student would produce over the course of a couple of years of graduate work. If we keep him we need to consider keeping millions of graduate students who are producing papers. I looked at his code and it seems like a package that students write for their final projects. Considering all of these factors I believe it is self promoting article (knowing that the person who originally created this article only has one contribution to the whole encyclopedia) Please advise.99.38.250.245 (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Washera College
My bad. I forgot that schools don't apply. Ol Yeller '''Talktome 01:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. For what it's worth I'd say your speedy deletion taggings are very accurate overall. Of course the occasional subtle gotcha like this will creep in sometimes :) Thparkth (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Speedy
I read your user page, and found it interesting. I nominate things for speedy all the time, and it's quite infrequent that they are declined... I usually stick with obvious vandal/hoax/copyvio/duplicates/bands. That being said, I think we need "how-to" and "essay" reasons for deletion. In any case, I find there to be much inconsistency with how speedied articles are handled. You comment on your user page that you think some articles can be saved. Maybe, but which ones? How fast? Why? You'll see what I'm talking about on my latest post at WT:CSD. Thought you'd want to know. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 12:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I see articles you've speedy-tagged all the time, and 99% of the time I find myself wishing there was an "I second this speedy deletion" tag I could put on to get the admins to hurry up and do the delete. The other 1% are generally where there's a loophole in the csd rules that not everyone remembers, or when I feel the article has at least a fighting chance of being a worthwhile addition to the encyclopedia. Generally (though not always) I'll try to make some improvements to those articles myself as well as removing the speedy tag. Thparkth (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * But what are your thoughts about inconsistency? You probably agree with any of my "advert" tags, but as I suggested, I think someone could find grounds to add information and stub just about any advert-tagged article successfully. Meanwhile, the mess that is hymns and hymn tunes still exists. It seems we're giving the wrong articles a second chance. I'm still tagging these "pure advertising" articles, but I think the rules are inconsistent. Even the no-contest non-notable bands may have one or two reviews that establish notability if we look hard enough, but no one complains when they are deleted. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't much get involved with articles about bands, because their notability is so subjective, and I have so little interest in the area. If every article on Wikipedia about bands, albums, songs and music labels was deleted, I wouldn't miss them.


 * To me "Hymns and hymn tunes" is exactly the kind of article that should get a second chance. It was created by a novice user in good faith. They put a lot of work into it. It is, believe it or not, better referenced than the average Wikipedia article. It is purely of academic interest - there's no product being promoted, and nobody is getting rich from the article. It contains no controversial content, is not a biography of a living person, and it's about a real topic that you will find discussed in Britannica and other encyclopedias.


 * Does it have a problem with tone and a strong dose of essay? We both know it does. But there is the skeleton of a good article in there. Should it be a stand-alone article? No. I believe it should be merged with Hymnal, but that will take quite a lot of work. Most of the content of the current article will be used in the new merged article.


 * Anyway, to go back to the general issue, just because I remove a speedy tag doesn't mean I don't think the article should be deleted. It just means that I don't think it should DEFINITELY and OBVIOUSLY be deleted. Speedy deletion is a drastic step, and it really should only be used where there is no doubt at all about the fate of the article. I think if someone spent a few hours writing an article in good faith (especially their first article), and was brave enough to put it up on Wikipedia, the least we can do is take a few minutes on Google Books, Google Archive News and Google Scholar to see if maybe the topic IS worth having before slapping a speedy tag on it.


 * You might be interested in reading this if you haven't seen it: Newbie_treatment_at_CSD. This is what motivated me to start looking out for articles by newbie editors that might have been wrongly tagged for speedy deletion. I can't imagine anything more disheartening for a keen, good-faith new editor. Thparkth (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a healthy discussion. My problem isn't about biting the newbies, and not even technically about that essay article. I'm coming at it from the other perspective: just about any article could probably be saved, even if it is a self-promotional article about some mom-and-pop shop in Nowheretown, Georgia... why have CSD at all? Lots of CSDs could technically be "saved", and I find it odd which articles people are choosing to rescue. It really is inconsistent. Only the "G" deletion reasons are clear-cut. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 14:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contact me
Most of articles are which I proposed to delete is not related to worldwide encyclopedia. There are no relate references on this articles. Anarkalli Aakarsha Jayatilaka Some person can get a publicity using news papers or other web sources .but everything is not correct or actual where they have published. I have notice you have recreate some articles which I nominate for deletion. I believe encyclopedia is should not give a space for get a publicity for ordinary persons. Isn’t it?(wipe 19:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wipeouting (talk • contribs)


 * Hi Wipeouting. I actually agree with you that a lot of articles about individual people probably shouldn't be there. The problem is that you are using the speedy deletion process to try to get the articles deleted. Speedy deletion doesn't give the article creator or other editors any time to review and see if maybe the person is actually important enough to be included in the encyclopedia.
 * For that reason, speedy deletion should only be used where it is very obvious that the person is not important enough. For example, in the case of Anarkalli Aakarsha Jayatilaka, the fact that she is (claimed to be) "the youngest female Provincial councillor in history and the only female member of the entire Southern Provincial Council" is a "credible claim of significance" so she shouldn't be speedy deleted. You might like to read up on proposed deletion and articles for deletion for the other (slower) ways of deleting articles, that would be appropriate in these cases.


 * Cheers, Thparkth (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have received a waning from User:Sodabottle. Please read again articles which I suggest to o delete. If you agree with me why don’t you propose to delete again. ThanksUser:wipeouting (wipe 04:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC))--wipe 04:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Asking some information
Encyclopedia is not a place for give a space create personal promotion pages for all parliament members in the world or all Models and actress or singers or business persons."Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. And it is not a blog, web space provider, social networking, or memorial site. According to Wikipedia policy it should be an encyclopedic stand. Main three Overviews of Wikipedia is Outline of Knowledge, Overviews and List of academic disciplines. It is project based on an openly-editable model. Many visitors come to Wikipedia to acquire knowledge, others to share knowledge."These information available on Wikipedia. But I am receiving warnings from User:Sodabottle. what is the decision should i get.--Wipeouting (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of DJ Surge-N
An article that you have been involved in editing, DJ Surge-N, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Accounting4Taste: talk 19:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Wow, thanks a lot! That was completely unexpected but very gratifying. Thparkth (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

speedy deletion
I think that you can't judge whether it duplicated the previous article based solely on the discussion. Absent that information, you should hold off and not just fire away making a judgment call when you know you lack all the facts. If you lack the facts to judge the case, you should allow someone who can examine the deleted article to make the judgment call, or consult the people involved in the original AfD. Tb (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's quite clear from the deletion discussion that the article is not the same one that was deleted. There's no doubt about it whatsoever. I certainly had enough reason to say "hold on! this doesn't look right!" which is what removing speedy deletion tags accomplishes. I think it's possible that your comment on the deletion discussion page makes it look like I acted against Wikipedia policy, which really isn't the case, though we may legitimately disagree about whether my judgement was correct. I would greatly appreciate if you would consider striking or removing the remark about me acting inappropriately. Thparkth (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, it's not clear. The deletion discussion allowed that the use by Blake was the only possible reason the article could stay, and deleted it even so.  Then removing the Blake element, and there is nothing even to discuss. Tb (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we'll have to agree to disagree then. Thparkth (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for amending your "inappropriate" comment. Thparkth (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Matadero Maella C.A.
Thank you for tagging Matadero Maella C.A. for deletion. For your information, CSD A2 was wrong (the page doesn't appear in any other Wikimedia project), but a google search revealed that the content was copied straight from. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, I noted on the talk page that the existing A2 tag didn't look appropriate, but that based on a translation of the material, it was deletable under A7 or G11. I didn't spot the copyvio. Not that any of this matters now :) Thparkth (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw your comment on the talk page. I never delete based on a translation; however, I found the copyvio when checking for A2 using google.. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Victory Carriers
Hey! This article has me fairly confused so I've been waiting to see what happens. The article was up at AfD before but was speedied anyway (see here). I'd rather just take it to AfD again so that the situation will have enough attention to be delt with correctly but I was curious to see if G4 could be applied to AfDs that turned into a speedy. I would say not but I wanted to see what you thought. Ol Yeller '''Talktome 02:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I see you've proded it so I'm guessing you're thinking along the same lines as I am.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 02:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, looks like it. Here's my thinking:
 * In principle, G4 is for deleting things that had a previous AfD consensus for deletion. In this case, although the article was nominated for AfD, it wasn't deleted because of a consensus at AfD, but because the author took offense to the AfD nomination and told them to delete it.
 * So I think G4 doesn't apply here because:
 * The previous deletion was not the outcome of an AfD consensus to delete.
 * The circumstances of the previous deletion no longer apply - the original author has clearly changed his mind about consenting to deletion, since he recreated the article.
 * I *believe* that either of those two things on its own would be enough to disallow G4. I wouldn't want to claim to be 100% certain under the circumstances. But for speedy deletion, better safe than sorry I think.
 * Thparkth (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I'm trying to stay open to the possibility of this subject being notable but I'd like to make sure we don't face constant recreation and fruitless discussion with the author if it's not needed. I'd almost rather we take it to AfD but I'm getting fairly apathetic to the article and don't really want to do the work right now.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 05:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI I asked for clarification on the speedy deletion aspect of this here, so I will know for sure what to do next time - you might like to contribute to the discussion. Thparkth (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation edit for Account Creation Interface
It was really me. Thparkth (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Fun  Pika  18:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)