User talk:Flyguy649/Archive 13

This is an archive of my talk page from January through March, 2010. Please do not edit this. Leave messages at my talk page. Flyguy649talkcontribs

Testing away account

Just testing the new "away" account. -- Flyguy649^away _talk 01:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd reported the name anyway.

'Vandal-sense tingling' and all that. Frankly, he might as well have had a loudspeaker screaming 'I'M A VANDAL!', though. HalfShadow 18:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually saw the name when you reported it there. First contribution wasn't promising, that's for sure! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandal complaint

why r u reporting my edits? it is not nice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.52.216 (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Q-fever

Hi,

Sorry and thanks for your comment and keeping the text.I will do some exercise and place it correct. Now it's to late.

Jean —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlusJean (talk • contribs) 02:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Asymptote Architecture

Hi, I wanted to talk about why the page i created was removed. or at least why the entire page was removed. I spent a long time making that page and for it to be completely remove is not right. How can I make it in compliance? do i need to cite more? thanks - Hz1234 (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Article restored; I should have only reverted the copyvio and not deleted the whole thing. Replied to the rest of the query at User_talk:Hz1234#Asymptote_Architecture. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi I can get the permission info and can have it sent immediately. i am looking on the history and my entry is removed entirely. Will it be able to be restored? I asked already for permission and received it. they said they are sending in the permission today.

Edit: Actually what form do i send to them. the same orts form with the text? or a link to the page with the text on it? basically how do i link them with the text on the page. thanks - Hz1234 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I've never done that myself. I believe the information is contained on the Wikipedia OTRS and WP:COPYREQ pages. I've put the last version in a subpage of your userpage, User:Hz1234/Asymptote Architecture. You can work on any changes there and then copy any changes into the restored Asymptote Architecture article when Wikipedia receives the permission (you will receive a Wikipedia OTRS "ticket" to demonstrate this). Let me know if you have more questions. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 23:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• NOTE: You should not be adding the copyright material to the article until Wikipedia has received permission. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 23:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

PMDrive1061's talk page

Good call on the semi-protect--I was about to do so myself before you beat me to it. I've also started an SPI case--this is obviously not a new user. Blueboy96 04:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

14 attacks in 20 minutes definitely deserves semi-protection! Thanks for tagging the socks and starting the SPI case. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The SPI case is here. Blueboy96 04:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

St. Louis Globe Democrat page

Hello my name is Tod and I live in St. Louis and a huge fan of media in this city. In December 2009, a new online newspaper started under the name of ST. LOUIS GLOBE-DEMOCRAT. It was started by a former employee of KPLR TV in St. Louis. A new company began under the name of St. Louis Globe-Democrat LLC and online at www.globe-democrat.com The new website is a 24 hour news site serving St. Louis - as an online newspaper. The staff is roughly 30 employees and unknown numerous contributors. This page was accurate for the past month. This evening this page was edited several time (see history). It seems to be someone who is not happy with the new] online version. The new newspaper online and company have had a lot of media coverage. There was naming rights / infringment rights to the Globe Democrat name by an individual in St. Louis that publishes a nostalgic Globe-Democrat newspaper a couple times a year throughout the metro - it is advertisement supported. The naming rights were resolved in December. Reference: St. Louis Business Journal article: http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2009/12/14/daily5.html

Please restore the non-biased and correct information on this page. Thank you for your time:

Tod De Heart td397@yahoo.com

news on new newspaper online edition: http://www.editorsweblog.org/web_20/2009/10/st_louis_globe-democrat_to_be_relaunched.php http://www.cyberjournalist.net/st-louis-globe-democrat-returning-as-free-online-news-site/

PROPOSED EDITS

I propose adding the following edit:

Efforts to use St. Louis Globe-Democrat Trade Name (2009)

The St. Louis Globe-Democrat name fell into the public domain. Dan Rositano is now publishing a new daily online newspaper edition that uses the name "the St. Louis Globe-Democrat". However, there is no ownership or other connection between this new online website and the newspaper that published under the same name.

I propose deleting the following:

St. Louis Globe-Democrat Online 2009 On December 8, 2009, The St. Louis Globe-Democrat launched online serving the city with a second daily newspaper online resource. The St. Louis Globe-Democrat returned after a 23 year hiatus launched a new online format serving as a daily online newspaper for the city. Dan Rositano, former director of information and technology at KPLR Channel 11 relaunched the St. Louis Globe-Democrat as a free online newspaper. The St. Louis Globe-Democrat is an independent newspaper, publishing the news impartially, supporting what it believes to be right and opposing what it believes to be wrong without regard to party politics. Continuously published up to the minute - 24 Hours a day, 7 days a week.

NATURE OF EDIT DISPUTE

The St. Louis Globe Democrat was one of two large circulation newspapers in the St. Louis Metropolitan area from its founding in 1852 until it ceased publication and went out of business in 1986. The history of this newspaper and its tradition, along with its conservative politics, is an important part of St. Louis history.

The trade name "St. Louis Globe Democrat" ("Globe") copyright registration expired. The Globe trademark and name is now unprotected and in the public domain. Anyone can now use that trade name.

In 2009, a new company was formed that started a web site using the Globe name. As noted in the StlToday/St. Louis Post Dispatch article referenced above, this new company has no common ownership, affiliation, or any other association with the storied Globe newspaper. This new company is using a tradename in the public domain just as you and I could.

There are no figures available on the amount of traffic the new site attracts but it appears to be very small. For example, its sports forums (a popular feature of newspapers usually attracting thousand of comments) had only generated a total of 25 posts in 8 weeks.

By all indications, the new web site is a small start up attempting to capitalize on the old Globe by its use of an expired tradename. This is of course their right. However, it is misleading to edit the page on this important newspaper with an important and prominent history so as to devote most of the wikipedia to the new web site. This is further compounded in that the disputed edits strongly implies an affiliation with the old Globe with statements such as "relaunched" and no explanation that there is no connection between these two companies, other than a common name.

Furthermore, the long narrative and edits on the new Globe appear to have been drafted by the new Globe staff. Thus for example, you have atement quoted as though it is fact: "The St. Louis Globe-Democrat is an independent newspaper, publishing the news impartially, supporting what it believes to be right and opposing what it believes to be wrong without regard to party politics. Continuously published up to the minute - 24 Hours a day, 7 days a week."

In prior edits since deleted by me, most of the page is devoted to listing the purported staff of the new Globe (most of whom appear to be free lancers). This is not information relevant to the topic--the old storied Globe newspaper and reads like an advertisement.

These type of edits, along with links to the new Globe's website and that prior to my deletions, resulted in most of this article being dedicated to self-serving statements about the new Globe. The article content was hijacked from a historical piece on the old newspaper to one dedicated to a new start. No impartial wikipedia editor would draft such an artcile. That the content was mostly dedicted to the new startup and making it appear that the new start up was affilliated with the old Globe strongly suggests that this portion of the article was originally drafted by a Globe employee. If so, drafting by an employee or owner of the article subject violates Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules.

Most importantly, the new Globe web site by all indications is very lightly trafficed and has no prominence, visibilty or significant readership in St. Louis. It is highly doubtful that this new start up web site would merit a wikipedia article. Its proposed publication would be rejected.

However, by bootstrapping itself onto the historically important old Globe, the new start up web site circumvents the procedure for article approval and misuses wikipedia to market its new company by falsely claiming an affiliation with the old Globe.

None of my edits should be controversial because each edit is based on facts. The edits may be disputed by an anonymous user--who may have an affiliation with the new start up company. That the new start up understandably wants to use Wikipedia to mislead the public into believing it is affiliated with an old long standing newspaper does not make a true factual controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danocooper (talk • contribs) 06:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Tod's Comments and Proposed Edit

Ew Tod's comments:

There was no "resolution" of the naming rights to the Globe Democrat. A hustrocial paper publisher claimed to own the trademark and had an attorney demand that the new web site stop using the name. The parties settled the matter with both agreeing they would use the name which is now unprotected. There was no lawsuit and there has been no claim that the new web site owns the name.

Second, what is the soruce for the claim that the new company has 30 employees? And how is that relecvant to the issue that the new company has no affiliation with the old Globe. The new company lists a number of "purported reporters, many of whom are known to work other full time jobs (e.g., Howard Balzer) so it is doubtful they have 30 full time employees.

Third, I am attempting to correct a misleading article. There is no affilliation between the old Globe Democrat and the new web site other rthan a common name. Yet the new company continues to mislead the public into believing that the two companies are somehow associated. There is no affiliation. Can you provide any source whatsoever that the two companies are in any way affiliated? You fail to do so.

This leads to the significant abuse of Wikipedia. This new startup would never be approved for a dedicated wikipedia article. But the new start up company has hijacked the wikipedia article on the old Globe and edited to make it appear as though this new successor is somehow affiliated with the old Globe. At a minimum the lack of any affiliation should be clearly pointed out in the article, Instead the article makes false claims to be the sucessor (e,g,"relaunched"). This mischaracterization is most flagrant on the new Globe's web site which brazenly claims to have been founded in 1852 and lists all of Globe's past publishers as though as there is some affilliation. Its a mareting strategy to capitalize on the old Globe name. The new company can be so misleading in its own paper. It should not use wikipedia to perpetrate usch a myth however.

As a result, Tod's proposed new edit with the proposed information tablet in the right margin is factually unsupported and misleading. It claims that the Globe was founded in 1852, which is true. It then later claims that Rositano is the current publisher and that the "Globe" is still publishing in 2009. As noted, this is a different company. Nothing in affiliation with the old Globe and the topic of this article OTHER than the use of the same trade name in the public name.

If I rename myself "Brad Pitt" can I now add a section about me to the wikipedia article on Pitt. Of course not.

It claims the "official website" is the new company's website. The false implication is that historical old Globe is now online at this "official" website.

Absent the common name, the new Globe would not merit a wikipedia article approval. You assert without any reference that the new Globe received significant media coverage of its launch. Googling the "Globe "Democrat" under news did not bring up any such articles other those referencing the trademark dispute. By comparison, the St Louis Daily Beacon is a far more established online daily launched by laid off Post Dispatch staff. Yet the Beacon has not been able to obtain (nor does it likely merit) a wikiepdia article. By hijacking the article on the old Globe and bootstrapping a common name, the new Globe is using wikipedia to mislead and as a marketing tool. That is not the purpose of an online encylopedia.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danocooper (talk • contribs) 06:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC) 

Re: St. Louis Globe-Democrat content dispute

I haven't had time to read everything but I'll help figure out what's going on. Please keep all discussion civil and on Talk:St. Louis Globe-Democrat where possible. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

St. Louis Globe Democrat

Given this situation... ownership yadda yadda

I believe it would be best to remain unbiases. The responses above seem very well biased in regard to keeping the Debellis paper, old Globe Democrat paper and new Globe Democrat paper all seperate - if that is the case, then wiki should resolve this issue with applying three pages for the Globe Democrat. Which is not user friendly.

What is on the actual wiki site now should be the resolution - three entities - one defunct, one nostalia print paper and one actual company (LLC) running with the name St. Louis Globe-Democrat.

To just simply eliminate one of the three historical and current entities in biases would be incorrect and unethical.

So I would propose leaving the Wikipedia page for the St. Louis Globe Democrat - with all past and currect parties using the name as is.

Regardless, a settlememt has been made to use the name (STL Globe Democrat) by two enties - Steve DeBellis and St. Louis Globe-Democrat LLC

This was a legal binding settlement and no more should be said about it on WIKI than that of which is public record. (see Business Journal Article regarding this settlement) this article should be referenced in the page.

I agree that the line that reads "Naming Rights" and info should remain on WIKI - unbiased and positioned. Like it reads on the page now.

Information on the employees comes from several articles and the comany website www.globe-democrat.com of St. Louis Globe Demorat LLC

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.200.34 (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

St. Louis Globe Democrat

The user above states the following in his/her comments above (the propose this):

(((((There are no figures available on the amount of traffic the new site attracts but it appears to be very small. For example, its sports forums (a popular feature of newspapers usually attracting thousand of comments) had only generated a total of 25 posts in 8 weeks.

By all indications, the new web site is a small start up attempting to capitalize on the old Globe by its use of an expired tradename. This is of course their right. However, it is misleading to edit the page on this important newspaper with an important and prominent history so as to devote most of the wikipedia to the new web site. This is further compounded in that the disputed edits strongly implies an affiliation with the old Globe with statements such as "relaunched" and no explanation that there is no connection between these two companies, other than a common name.

Furthermore, the long narrative and edits on the new Globe appear to have been drafted by the new Globe staff. Thus for example, you have atement quoted as though it is fact: "The St. Louis Globe-Democrat is an independent newspaper, publishing the news impartially, supporting what it believes to be right and opposing what it believes to be wrong without regard to party politics. Continuously published up to the minute - 24 Hours a day, 7 days a week."))))))

THIS IS BIASED UNFACTUAL INFORMATION!!!

The information on the bottom line of his/her statements was (I did) take from the new Globe Democrat site itself. PAGE; About US.

Sounds like this user has his/her own personal interest and dislike about the new company. Period.

There is no way you cannot see that in the statements written above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.200.34 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

DANOCOOPER RESPONSE CLAIM BY ANONYMOUS USER ABOVE.

A self serving mission statement claiming that the new site reports "news impartially", "up to the minute", and "without regard to party politics" violates numerous wikipedia criteria. First, there is no source for these claims other than company profiled (e.g, the new start up). Second, absent showing that the new startup has attained some size (again from a 3rd party verifiable source), this new start up is too small be profiled. See Wikiedia policies on advertisments.

"Advertising. Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#SOAPBOX

Nothing from any third party source suggests that the new Globe web site has any significant visibility or web traffic.

Last please stop suggesting I have some personal interest or bias against the new start up. I do not. I post my comments with registration unlike many of the contrary comments here which are posted anonymously. I do believe that the new web site is misleading in its efforts to claim an affiliation that does not exist. That it does so contradicts its very mission statement you quote. The issue is whether this new startup can hijack an article on the old Globe and claim to be its successor. Despite all the criticisms, no one has cited one source that suggests any affilliation with the old Globe. I would assert that "there is no way you cannot see" in the proposed article edits pertaining to the new startup that these edits were self serving and inserted by the new Globe or its staff. That all those edits are made anonymously bolsters this assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danocooper (talk • contribs) 23:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

st louis newspaper

As an outsider reading this page, I have to wonder what the poster directly above this own agenda is? If the new company in st. Louis has rights to use the name of the old newspaper then they have rights to be representative of the old newspaper. Sounds to me like someone did not secure the name for future use. In reading the response above, the poster makes strong accusations against the new papers company and staff that they are trying to use wikipedia for their benefit. Nonetheless to oppose the facts that this company is not valid. From what I am reading in the articles above, the company is getting established and recognition from the press and media as the new globe. That being said, this company does not seem to be breaking any laws with the name and can then be considered a new generation of an old company. Christpher Leahey, Chicago —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.157.61 (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you VERY much.

Frankly, if that little putz ever saw me in real life, he'd think twice about trying to "beat me up." I am by no means a small individual and I'm making tremendous strides in toning up the excess avoirdupois with the help of a personal trainer.  :) In any event, thanks for the help. I have no idea who the bastard is and I'd never heard of the username, but I'd love to find out someday. Wonder how badly he'd have to clean up after coming face-to-face with an exceedingly large, pissed-off Italian...? Ah, sweet fantasies. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

You're welcome! Obviously anonymity has emboldened this person. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Avianca page Restricted

Hello in regards to the Avianca page you have restricted, I have posted some source from a third party website, actually this is a .gov page containing evidence. I have post this on the talk page for Avianca.DG (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Continuing with the Avianca topic, I would like you to read my addition to the discussion where I throughly explained Avianca's situation, adding 3 sources: 1. The Special Administrative Unit of Civil Aeronautics (Colombian Government agency, even though someone mentioned is not a reliable source), 2. Boeing and 3. Airbus, the top two commercial airplanes manufacturers in the world. Mekanos (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it...-- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And what are your opinions / comments about it? Mekanos (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ozguroot

I think that Ozguroot edited in line with reestablished consensus while the other user that complained Happenstance as well as RashersTierney were equally abusive and reverted him then he reverted them etc. I find it absurd to block him for these edits, especially mentioning how they were mass edits; did you check edit history of those articles? Apparently not because you would see mass removal preceding his edits. User RashersTierney has run what I believe to be a canvassed straw poll (The poll results are gone now anyway. That was not a permanent forever consensus as such do not exist. It existed for one day.) to establish consensus but soon after the "consensus" was noted by regular editors it became apparent there was no consensus to remove large amount of info from 200 articles. The "consensus" was thus gone the very next day. Ozguroot might be angrier then the rest because unlike us he didn't just loose months of work but also a lot of money he gave to receive prompt updates on the subject so that he could update Wikipedia. Finally I will quote one user from the talk page, I see no signs of consensus from the dozens of diligent editors who maintained those pages and were blindsided by their removal without so much as a notice on the corresponding talk pages of the articles affected.--Avala (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Still peddling that utterly unfounded accusation of WP:CANVASS . Please make a formal complaint or give it a rest. Your persistent slur is bordering on harassment. RashersTierney (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My block was not based on an opinion on the issue at Talk:Passport. It was based only on the fact that Ozguroot (talk · contribs) was in the midst of reverting all of Happenstance (talk · contribs)'s edits (which were in turn reversions of Ozugoot) and had ignored two pleas for dialogue. Had Happenstance started to revert Ozguroot, I would have blocked Happenstance as well. Edit warring is bad. It is detrimental to the project, and suggests that people have either not tried to obtain consensus or have ignored it. I did not have time to read through pages of talk pages to figure out what was going on; I made a snap decision that a 1 hour block would stop the war. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK but have you seen the Talk:Passport? I can see several times user Ozguroot writing things like "Please, it seems you don't care any opinion in here, you just delete again and again." "You don't care what i say." "You don't care what those editors say." to Happenstance and I have the same feeling to be honest too so even though Happenstance charmingly invites for discussion it seems he doesn't honestly want to participate. I don't know all details of how Ozguroot behaved but it is true that Happenstance is ignoring pleas for discussion. And I am experiencing the same problem now. Even though it's obvious that the consensus made here is no longer in place per discussion in here, here, here, here but they still revert to the previous consensus forging that it is the current one and referring to editors to discuss it at talk:passport which is nice but is only used to charm the admin, the reality is - they know that the things have been discussed and that the majority of both users and arguments is not on their side. If you open Talk:Passport you will see a plethora of discussion and as you can see a lot of anger at the way those two users attempted to this without notifying any of the regular editors nor posting a notice on any of the talk pages of 200 articles they want to change in one sway. Can you please talk with users RashersTierney and Happenstance and remind them that 1) they cannot refer to a previous consensus as the current one and revert based on that as there is no such thing as permanent consensus, the fact that there are now in just a day about a dozen angry editors speaks for itself about how the poll was organized 2) that it is not that easy to reach a consensus that would remove so much information from so many articles. One needs strong arguments both for the removal itself and for encompassing all articles with the same fate. Please talk to them to make this easier and the discussion softer instead of sharper. Thank you.--Avala (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Mistakes on Sydney_Opera_House

I noticed that Usd241 damaged the article Sydney_Opera_House while editing it. Since you very recently verified it, I tought you would be the good person to inform. 131.137.13.27 (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, another editor reverted the vandalism. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 19:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted article back again

Hi there. Just wanted to inform you that the article which you deleted was recreated seconds after the deletion by the same editor. Amsaim (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and dealt with. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverted My Talk Page

Note:

Some editors consider personal attacks (say, from a frustrated vandal) a badge of honor—it shows they're having an impact on problem editors. They therefore keep (and archive) such postings. That's another reason why you shouldn't remove content from another editor's user talk page that you, personally, wouldn't find acceptable.

Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Collaborating_with_Other_Editors/Communicating_with_Your_Fellow_Editors 8bit (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This is beyond "Badge of honour" vandalism. These postings were not related to Wikipedia as a project, nor you as an editor. They were a result of a request made off Wikipedia to make outrageous postings. If you would like a review of my actions, feel free to post a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

ROBLOX trade currency.

Hey there im just trying to explain how the TC works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themacy12345 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

ITN for MMR vaccine controversy

On 2 February 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article MMR vaccine controversy, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Why did you delete my sweet Dakota Danner article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D stud (talk • contribs) 19:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The subject is not notable. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 19:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thats a total crock if you ask me this Wikipedia shit is gay but whatever..............................—Preceding unsigned comment added by D stud (talk • contribs) 19:37, February 3, 2010

I suggest you read the guidelines on writing your first article. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 19:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

correction

You mean do not attack others not do attack others. Thank you for using wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D stud (talk • contribs) 19:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

hmmm

looks like there must not be anything else to say.............--Dakota The Stud Danner 20:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by D stud (talk • contribs)

New Backyardigans episodes starting February 22nd.

http://treehousetv.com/watch/shows/Backyardigans/default.aspx

Of course half of them have already effectively shown, so whatever... HalfShadow 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess these are the ones they've been releasing on dvd. They're pretty good. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 00:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Jahia

Hi, Flyguy649!

I declined the speedy because the article in question is not substantially the same as the one that was deleted by proper AfD a year ago. If it must go through AfD again, please allow a full AfD? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Haakon (talk · contribs) requested the speedy. I saw that it was recreated but didn't have time to look at it. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! When I speedied the article (and closed the 3rd AfD) I didn't look at the year of the AfD... obviously it wasn't the same day, but a year apart. I did look at the two articles and thought they were close enough to be substantially similar. It's at a 4th AfD now. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Backyardigans

You listen, I am trying to help this page be better than you could ever make it. Oh, and you are actually taking my info that I researched and putting it on your user. That is condierd vandalism. So back off and let me do my work. If you don't want your work to be changed by other users, don't post it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.217.176 (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. Parts of that page have seen considerable discussion. Please discuss major changes on the talk page. That's what that hidden note on the Uniqua section says and means. And you adding a hidden note does not make it so. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete the listing?

This is a legitimate company, it is no different then Argon 18 that is listed. You should read both before removing! Best Regards, UNOVELO Bikes Ltd. www.unovelo.com - Sgerrie (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Sgerrie (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The article as written was an advertisement, which is against Wikipedia policy. I suggest reading the guidelines for writing your first article for links to policies and hints. Note also that you have a conflict of interest in writing an article about Unovelo. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not advertising read it it tells you about the company the SAME as Argon 18 or Cervelo

Sgerrie (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at those. Cervelo is poorly referenced, but there are references from reliable sources available. I've tagged Argon 18 for deletion. However, feel free to rewrite your article if you can find reliable sources and you can demonstrate notability. You may wish to start it in a "sandbox", like User:Sgerrie/Unovelo then once the article is finished and well referenced, you can move it to Unovelo. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

whats wrong with my listing of the lubricant I buy from Amazon?

Under Personal Lubricant was a list of different lubricants. I use Passion personal lubricant and wanted to list it. KY and other libricants are listed. Why cant I list the lubricant that I like there? thanks Sara —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natural Solutions (talk • contribs) 23:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The list must be to articles. That article doesn't exist. If it's notable, feel free to (re-)write it, but please keep in mind that you need reliable sources. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Heeheeheehee... HalfShadow 17:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm seriously considering asking how many miles to the gallon she gets with proper lubrication, but I'm starting to physically lose it already... HalfShadow 17:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Have a mimosa!! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

. . . well, that was instructive.--otherlleft 18:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That seeming non sequitur is from a post on HalfShadow's page. Also, I sometimes find the walk to the kitchen and back provides a moment's pause, which can be a good thing. And mimosa's are, well, yummy! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Globe-Democrat

For the record Flyguy: I do not have any association, employment or knowledge of anyone who works for the new Globe-Democrat in St. Louis. Any information attributed and added by me is completely through public media article and the companies website itself. Thank you. Tod —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.200.34 (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well, in restrospect, I should have seen that coming.

I mean I did anyway, but still... HalfShadow 02:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't appericiate you deleting my question

My question on the RD was not a question seeking medical advice, this should have been obvious to you, but evidently it was not. Just because a question asks if something is medically or scientifically possible does not mean the OP is asking for medical advice. XM (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a medical question. All the questions relate to a medical condition. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 03:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, just because all the questions relate to a medical condition does not mean it is asking for medical advice. What if I ask about how Carl Sagan or Dr Atkins died? That question certainly relates to a medical condition, but is in no way asking for medical advice. Likewise, if I ask why people in Japan live longer than those in Africa, that's certainly related to medical issues, but isnt seeking medical advice. XM (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, she's BSing you. That's the equivalent of almost 1 litre/quart of water a day over 3 weeks, which would probably be accompanied with some serious electrolyte imbalances, unless she received that water by some sort of balanced salt solution i.v. Corticosteroids do cause relatively rapid weight gain, but I am skeptical here. I'll let the other denizens of RD/S give other opinions. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

interested?

Hi. You may be interested that someone who has been vandalizing pages you have cleaned up is at it again. Check out special education. Thanks. Jim Steele (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Apparently I logged off just before you sent that, but another admin has dealt with the vandal. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Query

why are you deleting my clients page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt mccrane (talk • contribs) 20:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The article about Matthew McCrane, which seems to be you, did not demonstrate notability. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 21:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Maisie James

excuse me. Sorry but please stop deleting my page "Maisie James". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maisiee Xx (talk • contribs) 20:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the subject is not notable. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 20:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There is one template for a certain user you found

It's called Uw-vaublock. I noticed you added Uw-uhblock and Uw-voablock together instead. Next time, the single template will probably be a little more efficient. mechamind90 04:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Shortcut is: {{subst:vau}}.-- Flyguy649 ^talk 06:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Luge at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Men's singles

On February 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Luge at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Men's singles, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ref Desk blanking

I accidently blanked a page on the Ref. Desk about 10 hours ago. I am deeply sorry for that, I did not mean to do it nor do I know how it happened. For some reason my cursor became invisible although I could still type visibly. I tried to preview the page and everything went blank. Thanks for getting it reverted so quickly and avoiding aggro to other users. I have modest history but none of it includes anything malicious or negative. Again, very sorry. best, Richard Avery (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries! More complete response on your talk page. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection for Bukkake

Protection for bukkake is IMHO a little excessive: Atomaton is, umm, being a little revert-happy, but he's not entirely impervious to reason either, and the content is (slowly) changing. Can you undo it? Jpatokal (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO, it needs to stay to prevent more edit warring till a consensus is reached. CTJF83 GoUSA 10:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for input at Talk:Bukkake#Protection. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

So Ato likes the page as it is. 'Cum as you are', so to speak. HalfShadow 22:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Do the "winners" of the dispute get to say, "in your face"? -- Flyguy649 ^talk 23:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hope it isn't protected for long. Be a shame if it was spermanent. HalfShadow 23:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Socks

Re your message: I was one step ahead of you. =) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dust 362. I see there was already an SPI case open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lila Cheney 336. Probably should merge the cases together. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked a clerk to merge the cases. I didn't want to attempt to do it myself as I didn't want to mess up their procedures. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the CU uncovered a large group of accounts and added a range block for awhile. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw that. Seems like someone in SW Ontario with a lot of time on his hands! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time on it. THEN U DELETED IT

if you can delete pages, can we? and how?Cabhic (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 19:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Avianca protection

Is the dispute over? You indefinitely protected the article nearly two months ago. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems so. I've unprotected for now. Cheers, -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but where does the discussion leaves us? I provided reliable third party references about the 1919 foundation date... but there was no comment at all after my post. I would like to know what's your POV about it. Mekanos (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Mekanos. I lost your previous comment in a flurry of other messages and an archiving run. Ping me again in 12 hours if I haven't gotten back to you. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 00:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Flipper!

Imagine the Hulk as a spastic kid after a huge sugar intake shouting METEOR! WHERE IS METEOR!" while running around in circles like a dog who's just been told he's going for a walk.

Did I mention the super-strength? HalfShadow 22:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds awesome! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 00:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination)

Over 24 hours have passed since you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination) as "Closed; determining consensus. Please be patient!". Are you done reading and evaluating the debate yet? Cunard (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I'm half through. It's long and I'm trying to be very thorough. And I have other responsibilities in Real Life. I'm about to go to bed, but I will put a note on the AfD. Cheers, -- Flyguy649 ^talk 06:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read through it. Cunard (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think this got in to the deletion discussion, but here’s yet another external link discussing DWM: A Review And Tutorial Of The DWM Window Manager. I found it when researching Window Managers for X (I’m seeing if there’s something out there to replace my ancient FVWM1 window manager). Samboy (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it did, either this one or the first one (I recognize the horrid design). This looks like a hobby site and not remotely a reliable source. The discussion is closed though, please let the admin make his decision.--Crossmr (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Still working on it in hour-long chunks. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 00:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I can read the entire thing in an hour.--Crossmr (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome of the process, I am very very impressed with your diligence in this matter flyguy649. Thanks! Unomi (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If its that hard to find....

there is none... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what happens when you have massive off-site canvassing trying to save someone's pet project.--Crossmr (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

...and plenty of votes that voter specifically to counter alleged canvassing. Anyways, I still think that if it takes days to determine consensus, it's a clear sign that this a "no consensus". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, believe it or not, I haven't been reading the discussion non-stop for the past few days. Almost done. I'll post a more detailed summary of my thoughts at this subpage.-- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting analysis so far. But I suspect the outcome will be the same as with my rule of thumb... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A muddled discussion doesn't automatically mean no consensus. You could have 1 person arguing for delete and 50 arguing for keep and if the people arguing keep aren't saying anything in line with policy there is no reason to keep the article. So really, this all comes down to whether Flyguy accepts the argument that the sources they've provided are significant coverage by reliable third party sources independent of the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's 50-1, I'll trust the group more than the admin. Why have an AfD otherwise? Policies are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are also incomplete. And claiming "Consensus" or even "rough consensus" against a 50-1 majority is a perversion of that word. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it isn't a vote and local consensus can't override encyclopedia wide consensus. The local consensus on an AfD or article can't override a policy. Claiming it can would simply be opening the door for meatpuppetry to get people to do whatever they want. Most AfDs don't get a lot of attention so if any subject could get a dozen or so people to show up and say whatever they want, they'd more than have the majority on most AfDs. Anyone arguing keep or delete has to keep their arguments in line with policies and guidelines which is why it comes down to the decision of whether or not those sources are reliable sources independent of the subject and whether or not they constitute significant coverage. The people arguing keep feel they do, those arguing delete feel they don't. The amount of people arguing on either side is pretty irrelevant, because it isn't a vote, and consensus isn't a majority since there is already project wide consensus on things like WP:RS, WP:COI, and WP:NOTABILITY. The few people arguing on this AfD can have no great effect on swinging the project wide consensus. From WP:CONSENSUS In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority.--Crossmr (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

But in the 50-1 scenario, your assumption is that somehow the one closing admin has a better grasp of policies and their interpretation and a better knowledge of the facts of the situation (e.g. the quality of the sources) than the 50 that voted one particular way (and that can possibly include several other admins). That's a kind of trust in authority that I find quite misplaced, and in many cases even logically inconsistent. Moreover, things are not black or white - sources have different degrees of reliability. Sources have different degrees of independence ("sorry, but US sources are not acceptable for Barack Obama, they are not independent enough"). That's why we sample the contributors to see how they interpret the issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Except this is a biased sample. We've had massive offsite canvassing, and we are not randomly choosing people to give their opinions. They are choosing to edit the AfD and give their opinions. Even without the canvassing on any random AfD, we are not sampling. Editors pick and choose which subjects to give their opinion on. Flyguy has already pointed out there are several arguments that have nothing to do with policy and that is why we have an often cited essay on arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. In this particular case 2 sides have made their arguments for an against some particular sources as to why they feel they are reliable or not reliable, and why they feel their independent or not independent and why they feel they're significant or not significant, its up to him to decide which side is more compelling and more inline with existing policy. If one side disagrees with his interpretation we have DRV for that. Admins aren't infallible and sometimes they get closes wrong. Just because some people like a subject and show up and claim that a citation is reliable, independent or significant doesn't make it so. If forty million people say a foolish thing it does not become a wise one, but the wise man is foolish to give them the lie. Consensus is not a majority no matter how large the majority might seem. There are already thousands of other editors out there operating under a consensus and a couple dozen editors on an AfD discussion are a drop in the bucket.--Crossmr (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry to butt in, but the above Barack Obama analogy only works when about 45 of the 50 participants are members of the Tea Party movement who were pointed to the discussion through Sarah Palin's "death panel" Facebook page. And in all fairness, this is a straw man argument. It was nowhere near as overwhelming as 50-1 and most of the established editors voted keep without realizing the details behind the first closure or before it was argued that both of the key sources were undoubtedly tainted. Which leads me to the reason I'm here. I was about to remove the AfD tags from the article's page when I realized that it wasn't actually closed as "no consensus". Flyguy, don't you think that it's taking you a bit too long? I may be wrong, but it seems that you only have two options. If you don't accept the reasons for deletion as persuasive, just go with Stephan Schulz's rule of thumb. If you do, I have a strong suspicion that most of your target audience won't even be around to read your report, let alone appreciate the quality of its conclusions. In any case, the article was submitted to AfD nearly three weeks ago, and while I have no intention of influencing your presumably already existing decision, I feel that the time has come to finish the discussion one way or the other. — Rankiri (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Posting result in about an hour, including reasons for the length of time. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The AfD closure is now posted with my reasons at User:Flyguy649/Dwm. Please use the subpage talkpage for any discussion about my close. Also, I am only now reading the long comments above, as I didn't want to be influenced by pleas on my talkpage. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Now that you've finished, in my view, this should have ended nine days ago with this: [1]. I agree that it was a rather tough call, but could you please elaborate why you thought that the self-selected Debian rankings that ranked the software 5724th(!) were in any way indicative of notability? I don't know if it is necessary to create the discussion subpage because of this one question. — Rankiri (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I'm sorry, I just noticed the expanded version of your request at User:Flyguy649/Dwm. if you prefer to keep this discussion separate from the user page, feel free to move my question and your hypothetical answer in there. — Rankiri (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It probably should be moved there, because, honestly, that is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard around here. He agrees there are no reliable sources, noway to verify that its important, and he's basically hanging his hat on something that has NEVER been used to establish notability before and claiming that is equal to policy and guidelines--Crossmr (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I will reply tomorrow. I'm fighting a cold and am going to bed. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 01:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that you aren't happy with my close, Crossmr. That's fine. I suspect a Deletion review was inevitable no matter what the decision I -- or any other admin -- made. I may not have articulated as well as I might. I've been fighting a cold or sick for a few days, and frankly that makes thinking more challenging. I like to give all articles their due consideration. Sometimes, it's a cursory read and a click of the delete button. Here, I gave it more time. I don't know about you, but I have many other things to do outside of Wikipedia. I did the closure because I initially responded to a thread at WP:ANI about the meatpuppetry on the AfD. I reversed the speedy closure as I felt that a non-admin closure of the 2nd afd (started because of meatpuppetry in the first) was a bad idea. I may add more later; for the rest, it seems that it's being discussed at the deletion review. Regards, -- Flyguy649 ^talk 21:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• With all due respect, you didn't answer my question. Your closing arguments were practically based on a single inappropriate source. If you now agree that the source cannot be considered valid, the least you can do is to make an appropriate statement on the deletion review. If you don't agree with this assessment, I would really like to know why. — Rankiri (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• And again I'd have to echo that. The reasons this is up for deletion review is because you dismissed every single normal argument we'd have for keeping an article and chose something completely out of left field which if we had this discussion on a neutral project page say at the notability guideline you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on the project who would support that as a marker of notability.--Crossmr (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about my delay in replying; I was distracted by other posts but I should have responded to you (Rankiri) sooner. I don't know if Debian stats have ever been used to justify notability, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they hadn't. Looking again at the stats, they show 845 total installs, 142 regular users, 634 non-regular users and 71 users having recently updating it. The #1 ranked software have ~91,600 total installs. This means roughly 0.1% of people who use Debian to update their files have downloaded Dwm and less than 0.01% are regular users. This doesn't include people who are savvy enough to update the files directly (which I imagine is a lower number than the Deb figs). I also don't know whether this Debian stat site reports all Debian downloads or some fraction; I suspect the latter, but I'm not super informed on the subject. The software is (or was) clearly of interest to a subset of users, and I would argue that 0.1% of users is suggestive of notability. Of course not all people who download software use it indefinitely, so it makes sense that not all people who downloaded Dwm still update it. The software is a few years old, so perhaps users have moved on to more recent similar programs; perhaps they tried it and didn't care for it.

You and Crossmr are unhappy with my close. I don't take it personally -- we're all trying to make Wikipedia the best it can be. As argued during the AfD, FOSS is perhaps discriminated against/under-served (using the terms very loosely) by current policy and guidelines. My close allowed using Debian popcorn stats to suggest notability (and I'm not arguing that this proves notability, merely suggests it), and I gave some weight to the arguments that the sources present may be sufficient even though the argument of those recommending delete were more strongly grounded in policy and guidelines. Remember, I was looking at consensus. One thing is clear. When the deletion review is finished, I think it is a good idea to ask the Wikipedia community at large to answer a couple of questions about reliable sources and notability for Free/open-source software. I would like it to be something simple, like “Although some Free/Open-souce software (FOSS) is well-described by traditional WP:RS and is notable by Wikipedia's guideline (like OpenOffice), some FOSS that is used by a reasonable number of people isn't. Should such FOSS conform to the same guidelines and policies with respect to reliable sources and notability as other articles?” The second question could be conditional on the results of the first, and ask for what those guidelines should be, if any.

Anyway, this AfD and discussion has been interesting, and I'm sure there will be more in the near future. Regards, -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As you're aware, Wikipedia covers notable topics - those that are "worthy of notice" and have been "noticed" to a significant degree by the world at large. In light of this guideline, I think that claiming that such anecdotal evidence like the self-selected 5724th place or 845 counted installations was in any manner indicative of notability was a huge mistake, and I completely disagree that Wikipedia's "discrimination" against non-notable FOSS is somehow different from its general attitude toward other non-notable products and individuals.

That being said, it looks like you made some folks happy after all ([2], [3]), and considering the convoluted nature of the AfD, even I can admit that your cautious verdict wasn't entirely unjustified. Since I have no interest in continuing this train wreck of a debate, I think it's time for me to thank you for your answers and simply hope that at least some of my earlier objections didn't go to waste. — Rankiri (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't seen those... interesting. Thanks for your questions and comments; they showed that you care about the issue. You and the others have given me a lot to consider! Cheers, -- Flyguy649 ^talk 20:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry..but on what planet is 0.1% remotely notable? How is that even inline with our existing policies and guidelines. I'd dare you to propose that as a threshold for notability at WP:NOTE. You would be laughed out. Like Rankiri. I'm done. This is an utter joke of a close--Crossmr (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I studied proteins that I suspect 0.00000001% of the planet have heard of, yet they are in Wikipedia. Granted, they have traditional sources. I decided 0.1% is a reasonable number that SUGGESTS (I'm shouting, because apparently you don't want to hear that word) notability. The article is at deletion review. I believe it would have gone there if I'd decided to close as delete. So far my closure seems to be getting endorsed. But I have been reading (and taking in) all the arguments, including those against my point of view. It's great that you're passionate about the issue, and it's wonderful to believe strongly in your beliefs. However you have been skirting the edge of civility for a while. You haven't crossed it with me, but your piped link is cutting it very close. And that is calling a spade a spade. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 02:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• I know I was about to call it quits, but come on, did you just call this a rebuttal? Not only is your argument not founded on WP:N and WP:PILLARS—YouTube comments can also "suggest" notability, yet we all agree to disregard them—but it is also in direct conflict with such commonly accepted viewpoints as WP:POPULARITY, WP:LOCALFAME and WP:BIGNUMBER. Except, of course, for the fact that the numbers you keep referring to are not even remotely that big or in any way suggestive of the software's supposed popularity. Another point, just because the editors are sidestepping the issue and endorsing your verdict on the hopelessly contaminated, inconclusive debate, it doesn't automatically mean that they share your view on this particular source. So far, the only supportive arguments I see are amusingly self-contradicting "[t]hat statistic is wrong and definitely underestimated" from a new user and "[you shouldn't have wrote] a long justification for an obvious no-consensus" from dear Stephan Schulz. Not exactly an overwhelming show of support, if you ask me. — Rankiri (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal was the word I used in my edit comment; I probably should have written reply. I'm usually reasonably careful about Edit Comments as they're kinda useful, but I'm most lax on my own talk page. Agreed that the people endorsing the close don't necessarily endorse my reasons; I'm sure some rather disagree. They're saying that the close decision was reasonable from the debate on the AfD. I think I said before, this whole afd and DR has been rather instructive, at least to me. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 03:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny, what I see is, among a lot of noise, "Endorse, Comment, Endorse, Endorse, Endorse, Comment, endorse, Comment, Endorse, Endorse, Endorse, Endorse, Comment, Endorse". What I don't see is a single "overturn", though we can probably assume there are two implied in the noise... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• In case I need to repeat myself for the third or fourth time, I'm not questioning the emerging consensus of the deletion review. I'm saying that no experienced user has so far agreed that the discussed source was acceptable as valid and expressive of notability. Once again, you completely fail to address the subject at hand and try to divert everyone's attention with an impertinent snide remark that has very little to do with the actual discussion. — Rankiri (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Man, do I sometimes wish I'd just closed it with "No consensus". Although, then I would have been hit with lots of questions about how I came up with that. I definitely will carefully consider posting my thoughts/analysis of a closure in the future. It's not that I mind the questions, but the written statements encourage people to parse all my statements. Anyway...

Re: numbers. I'm not saying whatever the number is suggests the software is popular, awesome, useful, or essential. I think focusing on a number leads to people wanting to define a number that equals notability; I didn't say, "Dwm has been downloaded 845 times, which is greater than my personal threshold of 750, ergo notable" or something. (Imagine the irony if after all this if Dwm sticks around, someone who writes for a commonly accepted RS writes an article on Dwm and the afd, and everyone agrees that source is good. I don't know if I'd laugh or cry.) I'd never heard of dwm until March 5 or so. I'm pretty sure I'll never use it on my computer as I'm not a coder. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 03:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Dwm

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dwm. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Crossmr (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 01:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Drum

Hi there.

You put a full protect on Drum last week because of a user who insisted on adding spam links to his websites against community consensus. I'm wondering if you have any other tools in your arsenal to deal with this, as the user restored the links again, less than 24 hours after the protection was lifted. This is the only registered user who is causing problems, and he has been repeatedly warned about edit warring, spam, COI issues, etc.

Any help you can provide would be appreciated. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I Made It

I would to like to thank you for protecting I Made It (Cash Money Heroes) from the Anamous IPs.STAT-Verse 01:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete that photo?

Why did you delete that photo on this article J. D. Hayworth?--Johnwynnejr (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Hayworth.jpg was taken from this Facebook page. Files there have licences incompatible with Wikipedia (from Terms: "For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."). It is not enough to state "permission granted to use" in the file summary. Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for the process of granting permission to use the file. Otherwise you need to find a photo with a compatible license. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to get a second opinion on that license. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

RaRa DRV -- Draft ready

You commented on the deletion review on RaRa. I have prepared a userspace draft, linked in that DRV discussion. I think it deals with the problem of insufficient sourcing. Your comments would be welcome. DES ^(talk) 07:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

ITN for ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772)

On 28 March 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772), which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Dumelow (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! The story changed substantially from when I first suggested it. Kudos to those editors who did a great job on the article. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

COI blocking

Hi Flyguy - I just wanted to check in with you quickly to make sure I'm doing the right thing. You just blocked a commercial username (hotstampcompany or something), which I'd warned for a spam edit and COI. Should I have also reported the username as invalid or does the COI tag draw attention to it? Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC) (You can reply here if its easier).

The username was listed at WP:UAA; I don't recall if it was bot-reported or user-reported. Obviously promotional usernames (of a company, for exapmle) where the name is the same or essentially the same as the product/company/article should go to UAA. COI is for slightly more subtle things... the president of a company editing the company's article. In the above case, I believe the username was essentially the same as the domain they were adding. In that case it is a COI, but the UAA violation will nab them much sooner. I'm about to head to bed, so I hope that makes sense! Cheers, -- Flyguy649 ^talk 06:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks heaps (I should make more use of WP:UAA), Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Search-engine fraud

Not long after you warned Porn4u (talk · contribs) about adding spam links, I had a look at the link he was adding--it looks like he's trying to generate more clicks on his Website. I indefblocked him, since it looked like he was engaging in search-engine fraud. Blueboy96 22:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I was somewhat busy when I warned him. I had a quick look at the links and wasn't sure exactly what the link was. I defaulted to a warning, but I thought about the block... sounds good to me! Thanks. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 23:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)