User talk:Wuhwuzdat/Archive 3

WikiProject Chicago includes Chicago metro area
The scope of wp:WikiProject Chicago includes articles related the geographic area defined within template:Chicagoland. So, Xenobot's processing of Talk:Elgin and Belvidere Electric Company and Talk:Woodstock and Sycamore Traction Company were as they should have been. Based on your edit summary, to me it sounded as though you may have thought the scope of the Chicago Project was limited to only the City of Chicago. The Chicago Banner belongs within the talk pages of both articles because each of them have category declarations that are within the Chicago metro area. Please indicate if you see it the same way. Pknkly (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Woodstock and Sycamore Traction Company got no closer to chicago than beautiful(??) downtown Marengo, and the Elgin and Belvidere Electric Company only brushed the chicagoland area at its east end at Elgin. Where do you draw the line, Rockford? Wuh  Wuz  Dat  05:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC) please note, "chicago" purposely NOT capitalized, as long as the moronic, mumble mouthed, midnight marauder of Meigs is in office!


 * I don't know too much about railroad lines or even the geopolitical bounderies very well. I count on articles for that information.  For Woodstock and Sycamore Traction Company  someone set the category declaration of Category:DeKalb County, Illinois]] because the article says "Its headquarters and repair shop were in the city of Genoa"  and Genoa is in DeKalb County which is in scope for the Chicago Project.  I added the category declaration for Category:McHenry County, Illinois because that too is inferred due to the towns mentioned in the article. Pknkly (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * For Elgin and Belvidere Electric Company someone set the category declaration for Category:Elgin, Illinois which is in scope for the Chicago Project. Pknkly (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems all the category declarations are good and so the two articles should be tagged with the Chicago Project Banner. Agreed? It all has to do with the category declarations, if they are wrong, any editor can remove them.  I don't know if they are right or wrong. Pknkly (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While the "near side" of the "collar counties" may be part of the chicagoland area, the outer edge is decidedly rural, and NOT a part of the current suburban sprawl. At the time these railroads operated, they operated in a decidedly rural, NON SUBURBAN environment. From the towns served by these railroads, it was a 1/2 day ride, including connections over 1 or 2 other railroads, to reach the loop. So NOT agreed, personally, I think the chicago project is suffering from too much greedy suburban sprawl, grabbing as many articles as it can, for the purpose of showing it's own dubious importance. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  13:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to disagree with prior editors setting the Category:Elgin, Illinois, Category:McHenry County, Illinois, and the Category:McHenry County, Illinois category declarations. If you do, please go ahead and delete those and take up your argument with the editors who set them.  They know better than I do about those things. Once you remove those categories the articles would no longer have the appearance of being in scope for the Chicago Project. Pknkly (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I do NOT disagree with the placement of those categories, as the railroads did exist in those locations. I disagree with the chicago wikiproject laying claim to each and every article within those, and other categories. I ask again, what are the geographical boundaries of your project? Do you even have defined boundaries? Wuh  Wuz  Dat  17:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe P is referring to their inclusion in WP:CATS/CHICAGO and suggesting you remove them from there. That is what my bot uses to tag. As I comment below, it's best to err on the side of exclusion for these wider categories. –xenotalk 17:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The geographic scope of the Chicago Project is written up at wp:WikiProject Chicago - where is says Scope. Hope the section helps.  Glad to see we are in agreement about the category declarations within the articles. The best place to continue with discussions about the scope of the Chicago Proejct would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago where the process for excluding articles is given.  Its the process Xeno followed.  Pknkly (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the "meta issue" of how far a project can reach, the bot's instructions should err on the side of caution. Rather than having to manually de-tag articles in categories which skirt the scope line, it would be better to manually tag the articles within the category that are clearly on the Chicago side of that line. –xenotalk 15:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

SOH?
Just replying to your Talk message of 22-May-2009. If "SOH" refers to the Sim-Outhouse, yes I used to post on there with the tag Sturmvogel, though rarely have a chance to sim any more. Otherwise, I'm not sure where you might know me from. --PacificGhost (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, that was the place I meant.....Small world, isn't it? Wuh  Wuz  Dat  04:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

History of Jews in Latin America

 * Please review the individual edits as one was a c/e edit, not a content edit. Plus, input has already been requested and am waiting response. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism. I am also concerned a stalking sock or two may be behind the perceived edit war, if you look at the edit history on my talk page. Thank you. --Nsaum75 (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Was thinking "Sock" myself, after witnessing this users recent antics. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  00:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

CSD on Engine/Train templates
Can you orphan the remaining templates, they are included in an infobox that I'm not comfortable editing myself. -- Versa geek  14:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I just did, they were included in the templates documentation as "related" due to having the same bland gray color scheme. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  14:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy tagging
G'day Wuhwuzdat, you may find this page relevant to your activities as a new page patroller. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 03:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Question
Am I able to finish the posts I'm working on, or will they simply be deleted regardless? Also, since many of the subpages will likely be poorly sourced, would it be best to combine all of the divisions into one entry? Thanks for the help! Bwothe (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted? That will depend on the Admin(s) who review the deletion tagging. Yes, you may keep working, but I would STRONGLY suggest removing any and all promotional material from these thinly veiled advertisements masquerading as articles. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  20:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've declined the speedy deletions and counceled Bwothe on going forward. Toddst1 (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

ImproVision Improv Theatre
Hello there. Thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have declined your tagging of ImproVision Improv Theatre as Blatant Vandalism. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! NW ( Talk ) 03:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

NetMovers
Just a friendly note on NetMovers. Consensus has been that offices in multiple countries is a claim of importance for a business. And while not properly referenced, there are claims of media coverage that would meet notability. If you think this one should go, AfD would be the right path. HTH! -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  18:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Alice (2009 TV Series)
About the CSD on Alice (2009 TV Series) -- I just got done tagging it for cleanup and was trying to find other sources for it, but couldn't find anything about it. I was about to request a CSD myself, but seen you beat me to it. Just wanted to say good work! -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 20:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Marking new pages as patrolled
Hi there! I had a quick favour to ask. When you tag a page for SD, it would be great to mark the page as patrolled. That way other new page patrollers can save time by not having to review it again. Just thought I would pass that request along. Thanks! Singularity42 (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the archives for this talk page, Twinkles failure to do this, even when set to do it, are a long term issue for me. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  19:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Aah, no problem then. Singularity42 (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the revert on my user page. I guess I'm not awesome. Shrug. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk page
I would suggest not removing comments from your talk page in future, but simply reformatting them. It would be far kinder to leave a response rather than simply undoing them. Wikipedia is confusing enough to new users as it is, without the added confusion of their posts going missing. Just a suggestion. Thanks, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 15:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Explanation for Speedy Deletion of Doug Turner Page
Dear Wuhwuzdat, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to provide an explanation of why you tagged Doug Turner's page for speedy deletion. I am new to wikipedia, but from reading your profile it seems that you are known for a lot of speedy deletion requests. I understand that this is part of the process of 'in-group' policing of wikipedia in effort to encourage correct, verifiable information. But it would seem a part of the process is also providing a reason why you think something should be deleted. I welcome any and all dialogue. Politicalsavvy (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)PoliticalSavvy

November 2009
Please refrain from abusing CSD templates, as you did to Jamesin. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. ''Twice already you have tagged this article incorrectly. I must ask you to please stop now. Thank you.''  IShadowed  ✰  17:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear new new page patroller, get a clue! You can't warn an article.....you can only warn an editor. Please retract this completely unwarranted warning. I did not issue a warning or bliocking template on that page. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  17:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear user, I must also ask you to refrain from using personal attacks. Also, I did not warn the article, I am warning you seeing as this notice is on your talk page. Thank you  IShadowed  ✰  17:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Right concept, wrong warning. His point is that the article is ineligible for CSD G1 (which I agree with). G1 is very narrow in its definition. If that article is eligible for speedy deletion, it's via a very liberal read of A7 (since the root subject isn't notable) or by WP:SNOW, since it would never survive AfD—but that's not speedy deletion, but an administrator ignoring all rules. The warning did relate to use of user-warning templates and not article templates. —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fred, thank you for the clarification, only now did I notice the "warning or blocking templates", I had read it as "deletion or blocking templates".  IShadowed  ✰  17:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)(EC)(EC)Hoping I can get a word in edgewise on my own talk page. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  17:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Question
Why do you block sinebot from your page and then use forgetting (or not understanding, as many who are likely to come here are newbies) to sign as a reason to delete a comment or question unanswered. It does not seem very kind. Signed, Lady  of  Shalott  21:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to respond quickly to questions (When I am online), and found the frequent edit conflicts from Sinebot handling the unsigned posts most annoying. On the occasions that Sinebot failed to sign for the users who neglected to do so themselves, I ended up with posts that would end up loitering at the top of my page forever (or until I got annoyed and deleted them manually), due to Miszabot assuming that the unsigned post was part of the page header. As with any other computerized annoyance, if possible, I eliminate the problem at its source. No unsigned posts + no sinebot = no sinebot edit conflicts + no "loitering" posts. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  06:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I can understand that. However, it is still not very welcoming. Your talk page rules are off-putting to me, and I am both a longtime user and an administrator. You do a lot of new page patrol, and may well be scaring off newbie editors who have legitimate questions that deserve answers. Lady  of  Shalott  15:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Notice of WQA filing
Good day, I would like to inform you that a WQA has been filed which is related to you. You can find it here: link. Happy editing to you. --Taelus (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have tagged the topic as 'Stuck' per your request. However, the thread may not yet be closed, as depending on pending discussion and a response from the filing party, it may be taken to another venue as this is no longer within the scope of WQA. Happy editing, --Taelus (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, Now that it's over, oh what a wonderful waste of time that was. I was psychoanalyzed by an amateur shrink, badly misquoted (almost to the extent of libel), and was reminded of 6 instances of my past dealings with problem editors. And I didn't even get to see any kangaroos! Wuh  Wuz  Dat  07:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Survival of the Sickest (book)
I do not understand why you tagged that db-hoax. Amazon lists it; so that is clearly not an appropriate tag. Lady of  Shalott  15:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * since I'm here, this book is a problem. I do not think we should have articles on non-fiction books at this level, but the reviews are sufficient to meet the GNG and there's been no consensus to adopt stricter rules. Maybe we should just accept it, but try to cover them more comprehensively, instead of just the ones people put in because they like the book -- or wrote it, or whatever.   Part of the reason I tend to be inclusionist is that trying to be more selective can be more trouble than it's worth. (That's what happened on high schools--I was initially exclusionist until I got  tired of all the afds which tended to end almost randomly). I think non-notability harms us much less than promotionalism--though of course they often do go together.    DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I have no strong opinions on whether we should have an article on this book or not. The article was promotional as originally written, and I tagged it as advert for that. Labelling it a hoax though was certainly not correct though, as could be told with a very quick Google search, and that is the only thing I was addressing here. I was surprised when it was "speedy kept" in the AfD. Lady  of  Shalott  03:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Umbrella Attack
It may or my not be an acceptable Wikipedia article, but I do not see how by any stretch of the imagination it can be called vandalism or a hoax, & Cunard agreed with me about it. . There were good sources on the article when you tagged it. AfD is the place, I think, if you want to pursue it. I know it sounds silly, but I don;t actually see what deletion reason (let alone speedy) it would match, except for not being worth the trouble of covering. Looking at the previous comment here, you seem to be using hoax very much too freely. I've learned by my own experience  on in my time at Wikipedia that   one must actually check every time--even if sounds self-contradictory, some part may be correct. I still remember the comments I received.  DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I will leave the actual methodology of how to flush the toilet, who should flush it, and why it should be flushed up to your discretion, but please flush, one way or another. If flushing the toilet has to be discussed in committee, so be it. As for why this article was tagged as vandalism, the first article was tagged as a test edit, the second ,after warning, was vandalism. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  18:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ghostfire Games
Hello! I am not sure why this page has been marked for speedy deletion. I am creating the Ghostfire Games pages because it is being referenced by another page "Rage of the Gladiator", and that page has a red link for Ghostfire Games, so I am creating this one. GhostfireScott (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The mere existance of a red link is not an indication of sufficient notability of that links subject. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  20:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. So my next question is: What then would indicate the sufficient notability of a link, a link of this type? There are other video game companies listed on Wikipedia, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legendo. Thanks. GhostfireScott (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * as for the other company, please see Other stuff exists, As for notability of any subject, see WP:Notability. I'm sorry, but due to having to go to work in a few minutes, and other off-wiki time commitments, further replies on this and other matters will have to be delayed, possibly until Monday. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  20:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I found a second reliable source to further strengthen the case for notability -- IMDB. GhostfireScott (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * IMDB is not a reliable source. I42 (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, understood. Thank you. GhostfireScott (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, my case is two fold:

1) There are currently two other links that are sourcing this page Helix (video game) and Rage of the Gladiator, therefore is stands to reason that a wikipedia user might click on those links looking for information about the parent company.

2) Company bio information in two high traffic independent sites, IGN and IMDB.

If the original administrator does not believe the page is note-worthy, I simply request a second opinion. Thank you very much.

GhostfireScott (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I have removed the speedy deletion template from this article. It is not a candidate for WP:CSD, as it contains an assertion of importance/significance - the company is a manufacturer of notable video games. If you disagree that it is notable, you may nominate it for deletion, but I would request that you don't re-add the CSD tag. Robofish (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
I noticed the message you recently left to. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Draftydoor (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * please be more specific, a diff would be nice....what instance might you be referring to? Wuh Wuz  Dat  03:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ghostfire Games
I have responded to your request for deletion on the page corresponding to the article. I request a community of editors examine the case as I see no logical reason for exclusion here. Thanks! GhostfireScott (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Luka nervo
Hello Wuhwuzdat, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Luka nervo - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a matter of opinion. Taken to Afd. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  18:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

CSD
Only admins can decline speedy deletions. And don't template me. The speedy was applied before you started an AfD, so if an admin decline the speedy then start an AfD, otherwise you will be wasting other users time. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ANYONE can decline a CSD (except the original page author). Wuh  Wuz  Dat  18:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And did that article look like it was worth keeping? Obviously not, so let an admin delete it. If an admin declines to delete it, then PROD, then AfD. Don't add an AfD notice while a CSD is on the same page. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PROD is, in my opinion, a worthless process. As for tagging the page, there was no CSD notice there when I opened the page, and TW took me straight to the AfD discussion after tagging. It's quite possible that you CSD'd the page in the few seconds between my opening the page, and my tagging of it. You attitude on this matter fails to WP:AGF, in my opinion. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  18:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WWD, did you not get an edit conflict notice? I checked the logs, and Biker Biker added the CSD tag at 16:19, just before your addition of the AfD template, which is also time-stamped 16:19. —C.Fred (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Twinkle has never given me an edit conflict notice, but on occasion has totally or partially failed to complete all the edits required for an AfD. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  22:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like there was an edit conflict and Twinkle just steamrolled over it. No worries, but just bear in mind if this issues comes up again that Twinkle is prone to do it. —C.Fred (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from GLAM (industry sector)
Hello Wuhwuzdat, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to GLAM (industry sector) has been removed. It was removed by Staplegunnz with the following edit summary ' Added more content, removed delete proposal, marked entry as a stub '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Staplegunnz before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

cd historian re. oasis disc manufacturing
Hello and thanks for reaching out re. the page Oasis disc manufacturing. I have added a bunch more references, and perhaps made it clearer why I don't think the company in reference is in any way unremarkable. I am sorry you felt otherwise and would be pleased to have a further discussion with you if my changes do not clarify that for you. I am trying to be constructive here and hope you can assist me further. my email address is available to you (I believe!) if you would like to correspond with me directly; I would be grateful for that before you take further action.
 * As for "further action", the AfD discussion is (and has been) underway, and the outcome of that discussion will determine what, if any, further action is taken (further action by myself, in this case, will be limited to my participation in the AfD discussion). Please feel free to add your opinion to the discussion, here. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  20:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Cd historian Thank you!Cd historian (talk) User:Cd historian I think I fixed the link you didn't like, thanks for pointing that out to me. I have also been clearer about each change; the ones I was not commenting on before were ones I thought were minor changes but I will make summaries on all from now on. Cd historian (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Cd historian --In response to your comment on my page "slow down"-- and re. my reversion of the wordpress H1N1 linke: THANKS--I did that accidentally, but then re-reverted it and mentioned on YOUR page that I had removed it. I've also removed all the external links since they seemed to offend some of the authors. I think the page is looking pretty good and non-spammy right now, and I'll call it a night unless I hear from you again. Thank you again--Cd historian


 * This line added to allow the archiving bot to archive this thread properly, as the lack of a proper signature and timestamp in the previous postings would result in this topic lurking here forever. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  14:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Trliland
User:Trliland001--I cannot figure out how to reply to a deletion with a hangon. Cab you help me?
 * As your hoax posting has already been deleted, it's a bit late. Feel free to ask again, if you have anything constructive to add to the encyclopedia. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  14:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Chicago tagging
Simply mass undo-ing the bot won't solve the problem, you should probably take this up with the Chicago project (perhaps at WT:CHIBOTCATS). WikiProjects are typically free to set their scope however they like; most of these are in a category of a "Chicagoland" area. Note that the bot will revisit these articles on its next run unless the following statement is added to the page. (follows) –xenotalk 13:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look closely, you will see that the bot was tagging locations in Colorado, New Mexico, California, Iowa, Texas, and Wisconsin. While Da Mayor and his evil spawn may have held hopes of extending their power base beyond the city limits, I don't think even they would have included The San Francisco Bay area or Amarillo, Texas in their definition of the "Chicagoland" area. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  14:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm not endorsing the tags one way or the other - just letting you know that it's better to take it up at the source... Appears that Category:Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway was the entry leading to those, so perhaps it should be struck from WP:CHIBOTCATS. Do feel free to Be bold and do this yourself. By the way, I've pointed a CHI member here, as I am a humble operator who merely follows instructions =] –xenotalk 14:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Boldness has occurred. All state- and county- based categories removed from list, along with a few other problematic categories. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  15:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Though I know someone previous went on record as saying they do want the "state governors" and the like, but I'll leave that up to them to review. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 15:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As much as the people of the City of chicago may dispute it, there is intelligent life in the State of Illinois, outside the chicago city limits. It's not the STATE OF CHICAGO. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  15:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose as the major metropolitan centre in Illinois, they feel that the state Governors do have a large impact on the happenings and goings-on in Chicago (just playing devils advocate here). –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 15:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It would really help if you could add the above-mentioned "deny" statement when removing CHI tags to prevent Xenobot retagging these. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 17:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Camp Lake, Wisconsin
Curious, what's the point of the bots? I've never seen this template before, so I don't understand the documentation too well. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, it will prevent XenoBot from re adding the Chicago Wikiproject template (or any other template) to the page automatically. I believe it will list the pages it skips, and the bot operator will review each skipped article, and either tag, or skip the page, based on his own judgment. The Chicago Wikiproject seems to have run rapant recently, using the bot to add articles FAR beyond what most sane people would consider being part of the "Chicagoland" area. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  06:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. However, why remove this from templates such as Kane County, Illinois and Jasper County, Indiana?  They're part of the Chicago metropolitan area.  Nyttend (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While the near corners of those counties may be considered part of the chicago area, only the most liberal and/or demented interpretation would include the entire county, in either of these cases. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  07:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they're officially parts: see the Chicago entry at Illinois census statistical areas. Nyttend (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Low-emissions locomotives
Give it a try again, I added a no-bot to it, hope that will do it. If need be it can be protected, as I don't believe the bot can override that. Skier Dude ( talk ) 07:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Bot tagging
Thanks for helping to clean up WP:CHIBOTCATS. List of Washington Wizards head coaches, DeKalb County Courthouse (Illinois), and Silver Springs State Fish and Wildlife Area are a part of the project. The Wizards franchise started in Chicago and the other two subjects are part of Chicagoland.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Codi boggs
Check the edit history: I userfied the original, which the original creator then overwrote. Nice. MuffledThud (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was removing the warning from your talk page as I received your message. Wuh Wuz  Dat  14:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * NP! Twinkle is a two-edged sword. :-) MuffledThud (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is! Wuh  Wuz  Dat  14:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hschmidt06
In light of the sock puppet case you just opened, could I put the speedy tag that Aaswift removed from Hschmidt06's article (Tigris Financial Group Ltd.) back? --SquidSK (1MC•log) 15:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that would be "disruptive editing", but I do believe your AfD (and my AfD's of his/their other articles) will do quite nicely! Wuh  Wuz  Dat  15:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it be appropriate to mention the socking/disruptive editing committed by the author on the AfD page, or should we just let the article's merrits be weighed on their own? --SquidSK (1MC•log) 15:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I just did exactly that. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  15:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

CSD request
Hi there. I think I redirect that Music of 2009 to 2009 in music about the same time as you tagged it for CSD. At the moment I have removed the tag and left it as a redirect, as I feel it is a valid search term for people looking for 2009 in music. Would you agree? Regards, SGGH ping! 15:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  15:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Your AfD nom of No Ten Dollars Ride
Hey, you nominated this film for deletion a few hours ago. I thought I'd let you know that for whatever reason the article itself never got tagged, so I just opened a second nomination. I'll put an appropriate note on my nomination, so just FYI. --Glenfarclas (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like Twinkle misfired on me (again....), thank you for fixing the mistake. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  19:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem -- good work on that series of articles. --Glenfarclas (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO
Basically, the way the project works, we consider all articles within Cook County part of the project and all GA, FA and FLs that are part of Chicago metropolitan area part of the project. There are not many projects for most of the outlier counties. WP:ILLINOIS is inactive.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: No Way Out (Spanish band)
Hello Wuhwuzdat, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of No Way Out (Spanish band) - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the number of albums released, and the Spanish WP article referenced (not a WP:RS, I know) are enough to get them past A7. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy declined: Yi Jet Qi
Hi! I have declined to delete the article Yi Jet Qi, as notability has been asserted (albeit unreferenced) in that this person has written chart hits for other singers. Under the criteria of WP:CSD, any credible assertion of notability will mean that the article cannot be speedy deleted for that reason. I suggest PROD/AFD/Improve. Stephen! Coming... 17:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Wuhwuzdat for your work and thank you Stephen for declining deletion. May I know if I can remove the AfD message? If not, what do I have to do to remove it? Once again, thank you for you guys hard work. Adrianlcy (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you can't remove an AfD notice - once an articles for deletion has been started, the notice must stay until it is complete. What you can do is go to the AfD and (a) discuss why you think the article should be kept and (b) try to fix anything (sourcing issues, etc.) in the article that others are arguing are reasons for its deletion. Lady  of  Shalott  19:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

 * Thank you! Wuh  Wuz  Dat  07:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Aeeaeeaee 2
Just an FYI, reading your WP:AIV notice (post block, as I noticed him through RC), it appears that you are not familiar with this particular vandal. He's a cross-wiki vandal that targets among others. He follows Entlinkt's most recent edits and reverts the with an insulting edit summary in German. If you look at the history of the articles that Entlinkt has edited, you'll see what I mean. If he see him again, report him immediately. Warnings don't work. You just get the insult that you got. When you do report another sockpuppet, you might want to note that the admin should prevent access to the talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, I'll keep a lookout for him. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  07:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:F1 is the best/Lockerz
Hello Wuhwuzdat, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of User:F1 is the best/Lockerz - a page you tagged - because: '''Give it a chance, it's been created in userspace to develop. If it's still advertising in a few days, retag.''' Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Ged UK  13:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Having seen this users first attempt at publicizing this website, I'm less than enthusiastic about this current pages future existence Wuh  Wuz  Dat  14:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that link is NSFW. Lady  of  Shalott  19:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, but at least this version is 'clean', maybe they've learnt one lesson, perhaps they can learn another. Ged  UK  16:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Tsering Wangmo Dhompa
Hello Wuhwuzdat, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Tsering Wangmo Dhompa - a page you tagged - because: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. JohnCD (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It has been expanded since you tagged it, but even then it was not very short and it was apparent that it was about an author; also, it was rather BITEy to tag it A1 within a minute of its creation - better to give it ten or twenty minutes and come back to see if it's going anywhere. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Empower Orphans etc.
Hello Wuhwuzdat - Thanks for your comments on the following articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empower_Orphans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neha_Gupta

I disagree that both the articles are not notable. I agree that maybe I need to rewrite some portions to make it not sound like an advertisement.

In terms of accomplishments, I have included 10 articles and 4 external sites as third-party references. ~ Started a library at an orphanage to directly benefit 200 orphaned children. ~ Provided school books, school bags, shoes, food, blankets and sweaters to 200 orphans. ~ Conducted an Eye Clinic and Dental Clinic for 360 underprivileged children. Additionally, 56 children with acute eye problems and 103 children with acute dental problems were sponsored for treatment. ~ Provided annual scholarships to 10 children ~ Provided 10 sewing machines to older girls, so that they can start earning a living. ~ Obtained a grant for building another library at an underprivileged school.

Neha has also won a number of national awards/recognition: ~ Gold Medal of the President’s Volunteer Service Award. ~ Wachovia Corporation’s 2008 “Who Would You Thank” national award ~ Finalist of the Philadelphia Inquirer’s 2008 Citizen of the Year Award. ~ Amazing Kids of the Month Award ~ Volunteer effort highlighted in a number of national and international newspapers

Anvcomp (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As the articles in question have both been nominated for WP:AFD, the AFD discussions would be the best place for you to present your evidence. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  17:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide some guidance on where the discussion forum is for AFD, so that I can present my evidence. I have tried a number of links. Should I be added my evidence in the 'Talk' section of my article. Anvcomp (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The individual discussion pages for your articles are here and here. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  18:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have added evidence (justification) in both the articles. Hopefully that is sufficient. Anvcomp (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

BP4
Regarding the page for the Altoona Works BP4: I changed the hp from 1500 to 1350 based on information on the locomotives FRA blue card. How should this be cited? Ebtrr (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Ebtrr
 * Reference as "FRA Blue card from locomotive, date = ##/##/####"  Wuh  Wuz  Dat  23:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Chicago metropolitan area
Why have you been removing from all of the collar county categories? Nearly all of them are considered part of the Chicago metropolitan area per the U.S. Census Bureau definition, and some of them (DuPage County, Illinois and Kane County, Illinois for example) are considered part of the area no matter which definition you use. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The day western Dupage county is part of the metro area is the day I move to Alaska. Cookie cutter labeling of entire collar counties as part of a metropolitan area is pure insanity. (please refer to your source, the census area probably bumps up against those of Springfield, Indianopolis and Madison) This is yet another attempt by the Chicago wikiproject to take over every article within a 2500 mile radius of Chicago City hall. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  23:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your opinion about labeling the collar counties, but plenty of people outside of Wikipedia are doing it. As far as sources for the area go, I'll list a few, independent of Wikipedia:
 * The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning governs Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, Will, McHenry, and Kendall Counties:
 * The Chicago-Naperville-Joliet Metropolitan Statistical Area includes 14 different counties in 3 states (list on this page); counties adjacent to the area are included either in metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas for smaller cities or are not even in a statistical area (Walworth County, Wisconsin, for example.) :
 * As a practical example, the Chicago Tribune's classified section includes the same seven counties as CMAP does:
 * The Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce includes Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, Will and McHenry as listed here;
 * As another practical example, Metra, Chicago's commuter rail service, serves the six counties included in the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce definition.
 * So there is definitely precedent for including, at the least, DuPage, Kane, Lake, Will, McHenry, and probably Kendall County in the Chicago metropolitan area. It seems almost ridiculous to leave most of these counties out of the area, actually. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Visit the outer edges of those western collar counties sometime, and while staring at miles of farmland in every direction, wonder why anyone would declare this glorious expanse of rural environment to be "metropolitan". Been there, done that! Wuh  Wuz  Dat  01:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Granted, some of the outer counties do still have a lot of farmland, but they also all have cities which are considered outer-ring suburbs of Chicago (Woodstock and Geneva come to mind), and they're still part of the Chicagoland area per just about every written definition (which is what counts, per WP:V). As a side note, I don't think there's even that much farmland left in DuPage County, which (along with eastern Kane County) has been developing rapidly in the past several years. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that these counties each contain bona fide suburbs of the great sewer, but I must reapet my objection to including vast tracts of rural farmland in a metropolitan area. For example, Elgin is obviously a 'burb, but Pingree Grove (only a few miles west) is simply a wide spot on Rt 20, best known as a slowzone/curve/speedtrap. It might be a good compromise to include the individual 'burbs in your category, rather than taking the shortcut of rubber stamping entire counties. Urban sprawl is a terrible thing, even tiny little Union, Illinois has got a Yuppadelic slumdivision growing like a cancerous tumor at it's southwest corner (Hmmmm, I wonder how the yuppies will like the smell of coal smoke and the sound of steam whistles this summer?). Let's not let this horrible phenomenon encourage similar sprawl here. We need to draw reasonable boundaries, that reflect the actual spread of the metro area, not rubber stamp entire counties in a manner best suited to mindless government drones. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  03:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooops, forgot that Pingree grove fell victim recently...sigh....What ever happened ? I remember the intersection of Algonquin and Randall rds used to be two 2 lane rds, and a 4 way stop in the middle of 4 corn fields......... Wuh Wuz  Dat  03:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I support adding the communities as well, but the communities are part of the reason why the counties should be in there. Using the counties helps establish a parameter as to which communities should be included in the Chicago metropolitan area (and at the rate urban sprawl's going, that's most communities in the collar counties. Kendall County almost doubled in population since the last census, mostly thanks to long-distance commuters, and Metra has gone all the way to Elburn since 2006. Like it or not, the collar counties ain't farm country anymore.) It's not the job of Wikipedia to challenge the official method of defining a metropolitan area, which is almost always the county method. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 05:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Artcirq
Hello Wuhwuzdat. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Artcirq, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:EMSC/Emergency Medical Services for Children National Resource Center (EMSC NRC)
Hello Wuhwuzdat. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:EMSC/Emergency Medical Services for Children National Resource Center (EMSC NRC), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''It's only existed for a week, it's had a lot of work done since it was created. AGF and check it again in a month. .''' Thank you. Ged UK  17:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't believe in coddling spammers...it's kinda like getting in bed with a rattlesnake. But this is all academic at this point, as it would seem that another admin has found, and deleted the spam. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  17:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well, if it'd been in the mainspace, I'd have deleted it, but I'm always a bit more lenient with userspace pages, especially when they have the userspace template on. The page seems to have been deleted because the user's been blocked for a spam name, though quite how EMSC is particularly spammy is another question, but still. Anyway, happy new year! Ged  UK  19:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the name was considered "spammy", due to it being an acronym for the very organization whose self promotional userspace draft of an article instigated this very conversation. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  21:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly, but it hardly jumps out at you as a blatant spam name, but I don't generally deal with usernames, so I'm not going to go any further with this. No great loss overall to the project I expect. Ged  UK  21:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Some advice
I noticed your template on User talk:Bart Okendorf, and I'd like to ask that when dealing with situations of a sensitive nature—for example, an article that is deemed inaccurate by its subject—you take a few minutes to write a hand-written, informative, and polite note rather than slapping a generic boilerplate message on them. It really makes it more welcoming and less confusing for new editors. Thanks. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

IT IS NOT VANDALISM!
See, there's List of sex positions, Dirty Sanchez (sexual act), Pearl necklace (sexuality), and all the stuff in Category:Sexuality stubs. I WAS TRYING TO CREATE AN ARTICLE BUT WAS TOLD I DID IT WRONG SO I WON'T TRY TO MAKE IT AGAIN. Navalpath (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, your vandalism pages, tagged by me as vandalism, were deleted as vandalism. I'd say they were vandalism. Now please go find someplace else to play, before you get banned here. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  07:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA
I really implore you to reconsider your tone and approach. You are bordering on violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by leaving insulting messages calling me a "troll" when I am in a good-faith content dispute with you. I apologize for any misunderstanding. If this continues, I may have to list this matter on WP:WQA, an outcome that I certainly wish to avoid. Can you not simply let me edit the article for a few minutes without constant reversion of good edits? — James Kalmar   05:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * AS STATED TWICE PREVIOUSLY, FIX THE PROBLEMS THEN REMOVE THE TEMPLATES. Removing the templates without fixxing the problems FIRST will get you reported to WP:AIV. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  05:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And as I have consistently asked, what is your policy position for this statement? You are really attempting to impose your preference on the community at large.  Your constant insults terming me a "troll" are truly uncivil and inappropriate - even from a longtime contributor.  The argument could even be made that you are held to a higher standard because of your many valuable contributions.  —  James Kalmar   05:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Read your talk page warnings again. Wuh Wuz  Dat  05:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, none of the mildly-patronizing comments you left on my talk page cited any community-approved policy stating that tags cannot be removed just before working on an article rather than just after. The matter is not really that big of a deal.  However, I feel the need to express that inventing policy and subsequently insulting and threatening fellow contributors for supposed violations of said invented policy is not in harmony with the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.  —  James Kalmar   05:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read Admin C.Fred's comments on your talk page. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  05:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While policy is not concrete about it, it stands to reason that the problem should be corrected first, then the templates remove. See the warning text of the sequence of warnings, which say that it is inappropriate to remove the templates without fixing the problem or indicating the reason for removal in the edit summary. I'm inclined to agree that "approved alteration" is not a sufficient edit summary. —C.Fred (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * After some reflection: if you think it would be best to work on the article before removing the tags, I would be glad to yield to your viewpoint. I was just a bit surprised at the tone of your comments at first, but I know you meant well and you deal with many vandals and the like.  Please accept my apologies for any offense, offered as a fellow Wikipedian.  —  James Kalmar   05:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Bentley & Skinner
I declined your speedy request on Bentley & Skinner, which you placed one minute after the article was created. If you thought the text was spammy, changing two words would have made it completely unspammy. Editing is always preferred to deletion.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  18:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Editing something so obviously lacking in notability is an exercise in futility. AfD opened shortly before your comment posted above. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  18:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ...And, apparently, the AFD was closed as speedy keep. Multiple sources were added documenting notability, so the article looks to be compliant with policy - which is the whole point, after all. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 03:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Jaguar classed as non-notable software
Why have you considered my Jaguar articles non-notable software? We're not talking about the Halcyon or Konix Multisystem here, this console is a cult classic for the sake of... And I think many Jaguar fanboys would be deeply offended by the decision to class the Jaguar as non notable software. Bob_thegamepro Bob thegamepro (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Also Sega Dreamcast as above. Bob_thegamepro Bob thegamepro (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My prod nominations have absolutely nothing to do with the systems the games ran on, but rather with a blatant lack of any indication of WP:NOTABILITY, on each and every one of your rubber stamped articles. Simply telling us it existed, isn't proving notability.  Wuh  Wuz  Dat  17:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I will try and improve upon the problems listed by you're fair self. Bob_thegamepro Bob thegamepro (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply removing the PROD notices, without adding references, and misleadingly stating it was per a discussion on this page, may not have been the wisest course of action. I wish you luck with the Articles for Deletion discussions for these articles. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  16:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Reinstating WP:PROD tags
Once a prod tag has been contested, either explicitly or implicitly by deleting it, it shouldn't be reinstated per policy at WP:PROD. If you still think that Spitalfields Music should be deleted then the way forward is to start a discussion at WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Bragg
Regarding this edit, why is it linkspam? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * View it in context with her other edits...60 odd additions of links to the same site...pure chopped pork shoulder meat. See also below. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  18:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So it appears you agree that this particular added link, in and of itself, is not linkspam.
 * "60 odd additions of links to the same site" - Hmmmm. I see your problem. However, I am sure there are better ways you could address the problem than simple reversion with an ambiguous and confusing edit comment. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC/U
I have created a request for comment concerning you at WP:Requests for comment/Wuhwuzdat, as an attempt to resolve our dispute as politely as possible. If you felt able to respond, it would be appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Amanda.nelson12
I do not agree with you that links to interviews with the subjects of articles are necessarily linkspam, and have objected to your level 4 warning to her. She has asked at the help desk for further guidance. DuncanHill (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, can I recommend you withdraw the "Only Warning" you gave them? They seem to be acting constructively, so no reason to try chase them off the project.. --Taelus (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You may "recomend" all you want, but as an admin has agreed this was spamming I feel the warning should stand....60 odd additions of links to a specific site was spamming. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  18:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * He also agreed that the links were not spam, and that the material linked to is useful. I am sorry that you do not believe in supporting organizations such as the AIP which wish to help wikipedia editors and readers. DuncanHill (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between "Yes, they are spamming, and thats because they didn't know the rules" (The sort of thing a level 1 or 2 warning is for), and "Yes, they are spamming malciously and disrupting Wikipedia in bad faith." (The thing a level 4im warning gives.) --Taelus (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY towards all spammers..I treat em all the same. I'm just glad this came to a screeching halt, before she added all of her 500+ links. I was quite prepared to report her to WP:AIV as a promotion only account, if she had added even 1 additional link. Further discussion, short of a direct order from an admin, aimed at attempting to persuade me to remove this well deserved warning from the spammers talk page, is pointless. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  18:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Request to reconsider
I also disagree that the links provided were spam, and I also object to the level 4 warning given to the user.

This was not a case of multiple external links being added to one article, but of deep links being added to individual articles - each of which met WP:ELYES #3: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons (my emphasis).

The WP:SPAM guideline is not prescriptive, and it is clear to me that the assumption that the user was adding links in order to promote the American Institute of Physics website is a violation of WP:AGF. Links to these interviews improves wikipedia and WP:IAR certainly trumps any narrow reading of a guideline.

In addition, the purpose of escalating levels of warnings is to ensure that the (new) user is given an opportunity to understand any problems and modify behaviour. Jumping in with a threat of blocking so rapidly is very much a violation of WP:BITE in this case.

Now that multiple editors have disagreed with your assessment and actions, I now request that you strike the level 4 warning and revert your removal of these links. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As it is blatantly obvious that you have completely failed to read and comprehend the bolded text in my last reply...REQUEST DENIED. Get admin status, and then try again. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  18:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not disregard the good faith efforts of other editors in questioning your use of inappropriate warnings on new editors - it runs contrary to the ethos of WP:Consensus and collegiate editing that underpins the project. I am concerned that you appear not to care to differentiate between various types of linking en-masse that may occur; while most may indeed be inappropriate, it should not be considered vandalism without good cause (that the links violate policy of themselves, or the editor has ignored requests and warnings previously). Together with the aggressive and adversarial tone you have taken with your responses, I consider that your actions in this matter are disruptive and I am therefore warning you as to your future conduct in these and all other matters in the next few days - please consider this as a level3 warning; you are experienced enough to be familiar with WP:BITE and the proper manner of interacting with other contributors. As an admin, and as per your comments above, I also request that you redact the warning to  and re-engage with the editors with regard to your actions. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As this matter was brought up here previous to your comment, I would request that you reply there, in order to consolidate this discussion in a single location. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  06:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the RfC, but acted independently of that process - my remit permits me to address issues in what I feel is the appropriate manner. It is not the case that discussion or dispute resolution is suspended while certain processes are in hand. However, in so far that I have acted, I feel that I am unable to participate in the RfC since I am involved but only after the filing. You, and others, may make reference within the RfC to this discussion, but my input is going to be limited to this page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I must respectfully decline your " request " for the redaction of the warning, at this time. My mind is made up on the matter, and unlike Wikipedia, my personal opinion is not ruled by consensus. As these edits, show, I am not alone in my opinion.  Wuh  Wuz  Dat  15:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to re-engage on this issue. You are quite right to emphasise that both LHVU and I requested re-consideration. Regardless of status, I believe that anything other than a request is ultimately counter-productive on a consensus-driven project, staffed by volunteers. I still would like you to consider the policies and guidelines I have drawn attention to at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wuhwuzdat, and explain your position in the light of those, as I believe that the project is best served by us finding a mutually acceptable resolution to this dispute. Again, this is no more than a request. --RexxS (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Much obliged
I appreciate your work on Anne Murray, here. I was beginning to wonder whether there was any hope left for this hagiography to become encyclopedic, so thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Confusion over an edit
Not to be rude, but how could this edit even be remotely considered vandalism? If anything, it was good faith. He added some internal links. What exactly led you to believe this was vandalism? It doesn't make sense to me. -- ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV  13  20:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * User was previously warned about his blatant overlinking, see, This was not his only edit of his to be reverted as vandalism, nor was I the only one to revert as such, see , For more reversions (not specifically tagged as vandalism) of his overlinking, see , , , etc. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  07:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless, I don't think that is vandalism. Please consider using the normal rollbacking feature of Twinkle for edits like those. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  23:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle
Hello. For multiple problems that have been observed by your use of Twinkle to revert vandalism or tag articles for speedy deletions, including these, I have blacklisted your account here. My apologies, but your continued refusal to listen to other editors' concerns (example noted above) forces me to take this action. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  23:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go
I've enjoyed working with you on various rail-related articles. I think everybody needs a break from Wikipedia every now and then. Hope to see you back at some point. –BMRR (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I second that and I don't believe I'll be the last. I'm deeply sorry to see you go under these circumstances.  Good luck and may God bless.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My talk page
Thanks for letting me know what's going on, and I'm making an offer and reply at User_talk:Dank. - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, don't go yet. I got so fed up that I quit WP too, last summer, but after a few months away (sunny beaches were involved), decided to return. Could I ask you to please consider a long WP:Wikibreak instead? You'd be missed by a lot of us if you left for good. Our best wishes will follow you, whichever way you decide. MuffledThud (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to second MuffledThud's suggestion. It is difficult to avoid stress when one is passionate about one's purpose.  Perspective is valuable and requires cultivation.  I can recommend breaks from personal experience.  I will respect any course you decide upon, but this project could use your help.  I hope you can find a way to return.  Good luck   Tide  rolls  08:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh
''As it has become painfully obvious, my contributions are no longer welcome or needed here. In light of this situation, I am leaving this screwed up bureaucracy for the conceivable future. Good luck, my friends and keep fighting the good fight. ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM'' Wuh  Wuz  Dat  02:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What a croc!
 * T'ain't What You Do (It's the Way That You Do It)
 * Nobody is complaining about your contributions. Repeat NOBODY.
 * Your contributions are valued by many - me included.
 * What Requests for comment/Wuhwuzdat is about is your lack of ability to engage brain before doing things.
 * This is about your lack of manners, your arrogance, your willful ignorance, and your unwillingness or inability (I'm not sure which) to assume good faith and engage in polite discussion.
 * To quote Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "Nobody likes a smartarse."
 * I suggest you stop blaming others, and take responsibility for you own actions, because I assure you, I refuse to take responsibility for your rudeness and arrogance. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Pdfpdf, I don't think that a remark like "your lack of manners, your arrogance, your willful ignorance, and your unwillingness or inability (I'm not sure which) to assume good faith and engage in polite discussion" is helping a lot here, and I do think that their actions were not represented properly, that situations were not represented properly, and I do understand that this results in a burn-out of this user. I am sad .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're entitled to your opinion. Aren't I entitled to mine?
 * "I am sad" - Me too! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to write this Pdfpdf but I had reverted this comment as it did not appear with Assume Good Faith and it appears to taunt the contributor aleast inadvertently particularly after he has left the project. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're entitled to your opinion. Aren't I entitled to mine?
 * How it "appears" to you is not necessarily either the way it appears to others, or the way it was intended.
 * I have assumed lots of good faith with respect to this user's ill-mannered actions, but have received no good faith in reply.
 * It is NOT a taunt - it is intended as a wakeup call to someone who refuses to take responsibility for their bad behaviour. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response and my apologies for reverting your edit in the first place as I felt it violates the policy of commenting on content and not the Contributor as comments like your lack of manners, your arrogance, your willful ignorance,rudeness etc  constitute a personal attack on the contributor as more refers to him/her personally rather than to  his/her editing.This is would aggravate the sitution and drive out Wuhwuzdat from the Project and please understand one is trying the resolve the issue and not to escalate it.Anyway I leave it here,and accept your right to your opinion.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Concentrate on what you are good at
You make good navboxes, and Wikipedia needs more good navboxes. You know a lot about industrial locomotives - and Wikipedia still has a lot of gaps there. Play to your strengths. DuncanHill (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

After thoughts
Wuhwuzdat, as you may have read, I have left long parts on the talkpage of the RfC that was filed on you, as well as a post on the RfC itself. I was hoping that that would take the edges of the situation, but I see that that did not happen (yet). My feelings are a bit two-sided at the moment, and there is a bit of criticism to all sides of this discussion.

First, I want to ask you a question. You left an uw-spam4im on the talkpage of Amanda, who before that received two good faith remarks (no 'official' warnings). Did you have any reason for stepping towards an uw-spam4im immediately, as prima facie it seems that that may have been too harsh, too direct, and maybe an uw-spam1/uw-spam2/uw-spam3 as a first choice would have been better here (or a bit more pushy custom remark). It appears that Amanda was adding those links in good faith (though might/should have had thoughts after the first remarks on her talkpage about adding links only).

Unless you do have a good reason for stepping to an uw-spam4im immediately, I do share in principle the objections of the other editors here on this talkpage. However, I do feel that their immediate objections, and the subsequent actions of some others, seems to have been 'justified' by their assumption that there was no good reason to issue an uw-spam4im immediately, and fueled by your, apparent, past of being quite direct/harsh.

I share your 'zero tolerance' for spammers, and I know that spammers come in many forms, I am aware of their resilience, persistence, and creativity, I am aware that it does not matter where they come from (for-profit or not-for-profit, they all need money), and I know that spam is different from vandalism in that the former gives money to the spammer, while the latter generally does not give a financial benefit, but it would be good to be a bit less direct when the 'spammer' is coming from a not-for-profit organisation, and while pushing them to adapt their style and to be considerate in adding (trying to get them to work 'the Wikipedia way'), still giving them some time (which does not mean, that when there are serious concerns, they could not end up facing blocks and mass-reverts).

I hope you will stay here, everyone agrees that you are an asset to Wikipedia, but I hope, with others, that you will consider to be a bit less harsh, give new editors a bit more time. Though there is no place here for spammers, I do think that 'archivists' ("GLAM"'s) can be a great asset, even if all they do is (in a considerate way) add some links: they do provide contacts to great information, and that information can be used to enhance our encyclopedia.

Hope to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome Back
Glad to see you back. <B>-- RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 03:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments!
Thanks for taking the time to leave some feedback on my user page. I am glad to work in a collaborative fashion, and will certainly take your comments into consideration. I am also glad to see that you decided not to retire. I can see that you have helped the project in many ways, and your departure would be a loss to Wikipedia. Best wishes, — James Kalmar  02:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
iBentalk/contribs If you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 23:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The wikiout
I think the wikiout is a good idea. It'll give the vandalism patrollers a break, AND help people realize how much we contribute to Wikipedia! --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 23:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
<B>-- RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 00:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiout
I like the idea, and I'll pass the word along. Since patrollers are so unappreciated, surely Wikipedia can maintain itself while they take a day off, right?   S warm  ( Talk ) 05:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I comprehend the efficacy of this proposal. I don't feel unappreciated; maybe I'm deluding myself. I'd be willing to listen to other opinions, but for now I don't see the need. Regards  Tide  rolls  13:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't understand the efficacy or need of the dramaout either.   S warm  ( Talk ) 20:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Methinks I'll pass on this proposal, as I'm not sure that it is being made in good faith, based on this. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I choose to assume good faith on this one. <B>-- RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 03:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm sure all the vandalism will come to a screeching halt once people realise they're not being reverted. Are you insane? Half  Shadow  23:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)