User talk:Wizardman/Archive5

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cerimorgan.png
You removed the Replaceable fair use tag from Image:Cerimorgan.png, but you didn't make a decision as to its replaceability. It has been tagged since March 30, so it's time for a decision to be made. I can't do it, because I'm the one who tagged it in the first place, and the claim has been contested. Right now, it only has an undated RFU tag on it, which means it will just get pushed further and further into the future. âAngr 16:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments on my RfA
I was wondering if you could please respond to your comments on my RfA, either in the discussion section, or on my talk page. Thanks ~ G1ggy!  blah, blah, blah 23:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/2001 NFL Draft
I have fixed the links for the Universities and Player Positions in 2001 NFL Draft. So do you think they're ok now? thanks. Gman124 21:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

adminship
Well, first off, thanks for your confidence. I've been avoiding adminship for so long now. I never had the time nor the want of the responsibilities. But, I do have more available time now, so maybe I can be persuaded. I'll take alittle time to look around Administrators pages. If there's anything else you could fill me in on, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll see and let ya know. Joe I  05:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm in. Let me know what needs to be done.  Joe  I  18:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA
If I am ready to proceed with my RfA, can I use your nomination from a month ago, or do I need a new one? I will add my answers to the existing one this afternoon. Please confirm that I have followed directions and start my nomination. ~ Bigr  Tex  18:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Help Me..:)
When you have time, can you copyedit Zile and remove the tag? Thanks--Ugur Olgun 20:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment edit
Just so you know, I unindented your comment on the user you just warned to make it clear that the warning is directed at him, from what you said on ANI that seems to have been your intent. (although the ip may deserve one as well for his response to the attacks). Feel free to revert if you wish. - M  ask?  03:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Protecting

 * Pussy is being vandalized and reverted several times a say. I want to semiprotect it; but please, now that I am an admin, can I simply go ahead and semiprotect it, or is there an procedure to go through like with  'ing and AfD'ing? Anthony Appleyard 05:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

IfD - March 27
I added Images and media for deletion/2007 March 27 to the old discussions section of IfD earlier this week. BigDT addressed one of the three images that were still listed, and then you removed it from the backlog. However, Image:Irving trial02.jpg and Image:Irving deported canada1992.jpg still have ifd tags. Since I wrote the opinion opposing deletion, I would prefer that someone else remove the tags if the decision is to keep the images. ~ Bigr  Tex  16:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 NFL Draft - FL Candidate
Hi., i nominated the article where you made significant contributions - 2007 NFL Draft as a "Featured list" candidate. Please leave a comment FLC-2007 NFL Draft. Thanks. Kalyan 21:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK Next
Hi there, I changed the picture slot article. I hope you don't mind... Camptown 15:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Question
Hey Wizardman since you're an administrator I wanted to ask you a question. Almost ALL the NFL drafts pages prior to "2001 NFL Draft" has wikilinks that link to every instance a team, college, or position name appears, so I've asked about what should be done with all those Draft pages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League. Could you shed some light on what should be done with all those pages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League. Thanks. Gman124 02:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comment
Wizardman, regarding your comment about me on the Martin Luther listing, I have nothing to do with Hornplease. My only encounter with him (that I recall) has been on WP:LEAD. He is following another editor around, engaging in stalking and revert wars, which is how he ended up on Martin Luther, but I have not engaged with him there.

I delisted the Luther article because the main author, who is employed by the Lutheran church to develop online resources about Luther, including at Wikipedia, will not allow it to be edited by others, and has spent two years trying to keep all criticism out of it. It should not have been given good article status in the first place because of this situation. What the article needs, ideally, is to be reviewed by independent scholars who are knowledgeable about Luther, because we have been allowing the Lutheran church to use Wikipedia as a platform. Whether we can ever find such a scholar who'd be willing to do it is another matter.

However, my delisting was done in good faith and not as part of an edit war. I only noticed today that it had been given GA status, or I'd have delisted it sooner. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually came here to remark on the comment as well. However, it seems the above editor has helpfully elucidated the fact that I haven't actually run into her before, and delisting the Martin Luther article has nothing to do with her warring - with me, at least.
 * I haven't been stalking anyone, or engaging in revert wars. I followed a few RfCs. If a good number of them have the same editors involved, that says something about them, not me. That takes to four the number of unprovoked nasty remarks this editor's made about me, two days into my first interaction with her after three years here. Wow. Hornplease 19:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Wizardman, thank you for your kind support of my RfA, which closed successfully yesterday - and here's hoping that the penalty for screwing up on wikipedia isn't quite that high. Please feel free to drop me a note any time if there is anything that I might be able to do for you. Pastordavid 16:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick heads-up
Hi Wizardman. I just thought I should remind you that the ideal DYK update shouldn't focus too much on one particular area of interest. The two DYK nominations you've recently moved to Next Update are both Poland-related (one about an uprising and the other about an opera), which isn't the best recipe for balance. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA
Hey, thanks for your confidence and support in my RfA. If you see any room for improvement while I perform adminish duties, please let me know. :)  Joe   I  05:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

RFA recommendation
Wow... I'm humbled by your offer to nominate me. My activity's kind of dropped off over the past few weeks as I finished up school and am now in the process of preparing to move to start work, so I'm not sure if I would be the best candidate. If you disagree, though, I'd be willing to take the plunge - I've been considering it but felt that I needed some more time and really wasn't interested in doing a self-nom anyway. â PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  18:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Blake
You didn't like how him on British Invasion or Bon Jovi night!? Dude, those performances were among the best of the season. I agree that Jordan has had some good ones, too, but I, and I may not speak for all users of this IP, DEFINITELY think the right people made it to the final two! :) Have a good night!  A blake fan that happened to be up in the computer lab late --164.107.223.217 04:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Hello. Townshigh 04:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

1983 Dallas Cowboys season's speedy deletion
Hello. I was just wondering why you refused to speedily delete 1983 Dallas Cowboys season. I see now it has a lot of content, but, when I requested its deletion, it only had an infobox, and I think that one infobox does not qualify as a stub. Please explain your actions for me as they may be harmful to Wikipeida in the future. Also, I don't think you should be discussing American Idol on your talk page, since Wikipedia is not the place to discuss personal things not related to the project. This practice is forbidden in What Wikipedia is not and Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie Talk â¢  Contribs  â¢  Spread   the love! 20:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to come to Wizardman's defense here as a neutral third party. The page in question was created at 18:44 on 19 May 2007.  You placed a "speedy" tag only FOUR MINUTES! after the page's creation at 18:48 19 May 2007.  I would urge you to allow page creators more than four minutes to finish working on a page as had Wizardman or some other administrator actually acted on your request, a page that was obviously in the process of being established would have been deleted incredibly prematurely.  As for the bit on American Idol, I just have to disagree with Wizardman as I for one like Blake and Jordan MUCH better than Melinda.  Anyway, that's just my take on this.  Have a nice night!  --172.130.4.54 21:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello. This is a reply to your comments on my talk page. Thank you for replying to my comments above. I think you made the right call by assuming good faith and allowing the author to work on it. I also want to reply to 172.130.4.54's comments above. I think the rules are pretty clear and articles that do not qualify as stubs should be deleted. However, I always make sure to advise editors to create subpages for articles they have in progress, but aren't yet completed, to avoid future deletions. Thank you. Yours truly,  Boricuaeddie Talk â¢  Contribs  â¢  Spread   the love! 23:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I know I'm violating policy here, but I agree with User:Wizardman. Jordin rules! Boricuaeddie Talk â¢  Contribs  â¢  Spread   the love! 23:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

J. R. Richard
Hey, I know you did the GA evaluation for Lee Smith (baseball) and I was wondering if you would be interested in doing a GA evaluation for J. R. Richard? Please let me know on the article talk page or my talk page if there are corrections that need to fixed. I went through most of the article, and things appear to be fine. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk)  23:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks for telling me about the redlink. I spelled his name wrong (I don't know how that happened). It's fixed now, thanks. Nishkid64 (talk)  23:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Adelaide Aglietta
There was an article, Adelaide Aglietta, that was nominated for a speedy deletion - I came across it and did some research, and she has over 16,000+ hits on google and has an entry on Italian Wikipedia, among others - so I placed a {hangon} tag on her page and cited these sources and yet her article was deleted anyway. Is there any way to revert that and restore her article?


 * Again, if I can chime in. I think the problem is this whole TW thingy.  The request for Speedy Deletion came only TWO MINUTES!? after the article's creation!!  That's just crazy!  Similarly (see above comment on the 1983 Dallas Cowboys), a user requested Speedy Delete for an article using TW a mere four minutes after the article's creation.  Thus, that TW thing is ridiculous and needs to be sacked or something, because article creators must be allowed more than a few minutes to start and work on an article and obviously in both cases that's what was going on.  Perhaps someone should bring a discussion to Incidents or something about these two instances to see if there are more of TW causing articles to get speedy tags less than five minutes after their creation.  This may be a much bigger problem . . .--172.130.4.54 21:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Carioca RFA
Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (31/4/1), so I am now an administrator. If you have any comments or concerns on my actions as an administrator, please let me know. Thank you! --Carioca 20:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

re: adminship offer
Wow, I'm actually surprised. I never really felt comfortable nominating myself, and I never thought I would get enough attention from my work for anybody else to consider me as admin material. However, give me some more time to think about it; I've got finals through next week so I'm busy with other things. I still appreciate the offer, though. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * After what is probably way too much time thinking about it, I think I'll pass on adminship for now. Too much going on in my life to really focus some time on such a responsibility. Thank you for considering me anyway, though. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Thanks for doing the late update (I had been meaning to get to it for ages, but had been caught up by various things). Are you going to do the notifications and clear the next update? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The Next Update...
... is ready when needed. Smee 17:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Please consider the article I nominated from May 16 for the Next Update. User:ClaudeReigns commented below the nom that the issues themselves have been addressed, and the article itself is sourced to (8) reputable citations.  I won't mind if you don't, but keep me posted.  Yours, Smee 05:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

deletion review of helium.com
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Helium.com. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. &there4; here&hellip;&spades; 09:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive
This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :GAReview underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 NFL Draft
Hi., i have waited for about 5 days for IanManka to close his objections to the FLC. I have left him message 1 thrice on 19th, 20th and 23rd and haven't heard back from him. Is it possible for you to close the FLC on 2007 NFL draft as his point has already been addressed. Thanks. Kalyan 06:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Hi there - thanks for the updates that you have been doing. A reminder - please can you link the images when you archive the new update: I have just added a few. Thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Examples
Hey. I went back to Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents and gave some examples, rather quotes, of how he's responded to other users after he has been questioned for doing this. -- Ksy92003  (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that Soxrock has done this again. See these edits to 2007 NBA Playoffs:  and .  This is the first edit with the final score included: .  All those edits were done by Soxrock.  -- Ksy92003  (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I wanted to bring something else to your attention; Soxrock left a quote on my talk page yesterday afternoon (before I left a note at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents:

2007 Indianapolis 500 I'M TELLING YOU. THIS RACE COULD BE OVER. IT IS IN A RAIN DELAY. IT COULD BE OVER IF IT LASTS ABOUT 2 OR MORE HOURS, THIS COULD BE OVER. SO I'M NOT VIOLATING [expletive].User talk:Ksy92003


 * I should've pointed this out when I left the note at the "Incidents" page, but I didn't notice it until then. I think that this quote is a good example of how Soxrock seems to willingly ignore an official rule.  He said this based on assumption; there hasn't been any evidence to support him.  Even worse, the race did, in fact, continue after the rain delay.  -- Ksy92003  (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert in Joe Borowski article
Hi ... I see that you reverted my removal of the Polish-American category from Joe Borowski. Do you have a source that definitively states that he is of Polish descent? --Sanfranman59 17:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

1926 World Series GAC
Sorry to bother you again, but I thought you might be interested in doing a GAC evaluation for 1926 World Series. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk)  00:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Saul Rogovin article;' Zimmerman article
Hi ... If you have a moment and interest, you might help out on the Saul Rogovin article. I am trying to avoid an edit war. Thanks.--Epeefleche 14:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are a lumper! I just took a look at your example ... Jerry Zimmerman.  You might want to take a look at the citations on readability and paragraph size that I offere up.  Or, better yet, do a google search and find your own if you do not like those.  I think that it is pretty clear that research suggests that paras like that one are difficult to read and retain.  But I'll leave Zimmerman to you. Tx for your thoughts!--Epeefleche 14:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I need to Merge two entrys or get rid of one
I think I created two entrys Isabel Susana Martinez and Isabel Martinez, the better one is the one with her picture which is Isabel Susana Martinez. Can they be merged or can one be deleated? thanks for any help you can provide. Callelinea 18:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

One more problem with Soxrock
I was looking at Soxrock's contributions and saw this edit he made:. His edit summary reads as follows:

If you don't think it's over, you must believe in miracles

Also, Dknights411 left this comment at Soxrock's talk page:

I saw that you made a bracket update in-game with the assumption that the game was over. While I know the Jazz had no chance tonight, it's [never] official until the clock reads 0:00[.0]. So could you [please] hold off on these types of edits until the game [officially] ends? Besides, miricles [do] happen

I'm not sure if you plan on doing anything with this, but this is a little bit more information to support it. -- Ksy92003  (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Editor edit warring and removing urls to ESPN, Baseball Cube, Baseball Library, Fangraphs, etc
An editor keeps on reverting my Fangraphs addition to the Sandy Koufax links section, even though it presents unique info.

I asked him on that page to move any discussion to the talk page, and stop edit warring.

Instead he RV'd.

He has now begun deleting similar external links to Fangraphs, ESPN, Baseball Cube, Baseball Library, and other urls that provide unique info. See diffs at John Grabow, Jason Marquis, andBrad Ausmus. He did this in such short order that it suggests that he is going into my edit history to look for pages that I have edited, in order to make these deletions of appropriate unique external links. Can you help? Thanks. --Epeefleche 07:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Was this directed towards me? I wasn't sure. Nishkid64 (talk)  13:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. What do you think of the Fangraph website? To me, it appears to be unique in comparison to other statistical website. Also note that the website is a popular baseball stats website (Alexa ranking ~80,000). Nishkid64 (talk)  13:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In my experience, most people find the traffic information at Alexa very unreliable. However (and don't quote me on this), I believe ESPN is in the top 50 and B-R is in the top 13-15,000.  Further to the point, there are so many sites already well documented on the various wiki pages that do provide the exact information available at Fangraphs.com.  I think it is a great and have no problem with the information being referenced on a case by case basis, but i just don't see how this truly offers something unique. // Tecmobowl 14:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have centralized this and related discussion by moving it to .--Epeefleche 17:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links in Articles

 * Unfortunately, I really cannot understand how you came to the conclusion you did. Between the Marquis and Ausmus article there are 28 external links.  There are also a number of links available due to references.  In an attempt to keep this discussion focused, I will point out a few things from the Marquis article.  I am not simply going to revert your edit, but I am not inclined to leave the information there for a long time either.  I'd like to focus now on the content of the debate (and not the circumstances).  Although I am going to focus mainly on Marquis, his page is representative of many of these other pages and so the argument would apply there as well.
 * First, I randomly selected a handful of baseball player pages that i have never edited - Don Drysdale, Bob Gibson, Carney Lansford, Brad Penny, and Wee Willie Keeler. Not a single one of those comes anywhere close to having the number of links available on the pages where I removed fangraphs from.  At the time of the writing, Gibson had the most with 8. If you were going to ask a group of people which of the players (including Marquis and Ausmus) are most notable, the list will probably include Drysdale, Gibson, and Keeler; furthermore, the list would probably not include Marquis or Ausmus.  This again would seem to support the removal of a significant portion of the links on the Marquis, Ausmus, etc... pages.
 * Second, let's look at the content of the links and whether or not that content is a) truly unique and b) able to be incorporated into the body of the article. Here is the list of links in the current revision of the Marquis article (i have numbered them for the purpose of identification):


 * 1. Cubs bio
 * 2.
 * 3.
 * 4. BR Bullpen bio
 * 5. Hardball Times stats
 * 6. Baseball Cube stats
 * 7. Fangraphs stats
 * 8. Baseball Almanac profile
 * 9. Baseball Library profile
 * 10. Jews in Sports bio
 * 11. MLB, "Cardinals avoid arbitration with Marquis," 1/7/06
 * 12. "The boys of summer and seder: Baseball, Passover share openers," 3/12/07
 * 13. Jewish Major League career leaders
 * Of the 13 total links there, here is how i see the break down: Links 1, 2, 3, 5,6,7, & 8 are all essentially the same: statistics sites. While many of them might say "bio", the biographical information on those pages is inferior to the information that is contained on most baseball player pages on this site.  You could probably add the baseball library link, but a good number of those pages provide timelines, so if any of them is unique - that would be it.  Most of the articles here cite seem to provide B-R, so it is the site i would recommend is focused on and would follow that with ESPN;  Link 4 is a link to the BR wiki.  At this point, it seems to fall under the guidelines of what is acceptable as defined at WP:EXTERNAL.  That being said, I would actually remove it, but did not want to be overly zealous and simply leave one link on those pages.  The press release for Marquis has no place in the external links.  Any relevant content could be used and referenced in the content portion of the article, hence its' removal.  That leaves links 10, 12, & 13.  12 requires registration - that's a definite no no.  Thirteen seems acceptable, although I would think that is the type of content that is worthy of its' own article here on wiki.  This leaves us with #9.  It's a relatively short page with very little unique content.  Anything one would find beneficial could simply be referenced in the article.
 * Based on those observations, I just don't see this debate as being the least bit "grey". These link sites have no place here and should be removed (systematically if possible).  When you consider WP:BOLD, WP:LINKS, [{WP:AGF]], and WP:EXTERNAL, I do not see how the community as a whole supports your perspective on the debate.  Again, I am watching this, so perhaps for "flow", if you want to respond, it would be easiest on me if you did so here and then pointed me to this topic OR if we moved this discussion to this page, the community would be best served.  It might not be a bad idea to change that topic title or simply add a new heard on that page as the main focus on this is the content and not the people involved. // Tecmobowl 14:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have centralized this and related discussion by moving it to .--Epeefleche 17:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)