User talk:Irbisgreif/Archives/2009/September

Speedy deletion declined: Eric West

Hello Irbisgreif, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Eric West - a page you tagged - because: Article claims importance/significance of the subject. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. SoWhy 13:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ohrangers

You requested deletion for an article saying it was a copyvio of a Wikipedia mirror when it was only split off from the parent article earlier today.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't see how a Divx watermark means anything to a fair use image.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you let me fucking work on the article for a couple of hours? I keep getting hit by edit conflicts from you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, Wapedia wasn't clearly a WP mirror.

The image had two issues, one you haven't addressed.

Consider an in-use tag? I'm just trying to make sure that problems with the article remain noted. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am currently addressing the issues with the image and the article. I don't know why you bothered to list it on WP:PUI because it is clearly not a free image and the tags on the image describe that very clearly. I am working on the article such that the fair use image is properly incorporated. And I have yet to see a screenshot of anything that is not used to accompany descriptive text within the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

As a courtesy, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Irbisgreif_and_File:Ohranger.jpg is a thread I have begun concerning your actions today in regards to deletion tags on File:Ohranger.jpg today.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"your "vote" will be ignored."

Quoted from: [1]

At: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of zombie novels

FYI. Ikip (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Persecution of Falun Gong

Hello. I'm contacting the people involved in the earlier discussion about changing the title of this article. A similar argument is currently being run, this time to name it "History of Falun Gong." This note was just to make you aware of this. Best.--Asdfg12345 03:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

speedy deletion declined: Bharatiya Grameen Mahila Sangh

I just declided your deletion request for Bharatiya Grameen Mahila Sangh (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch. That article clearly states significance. Seeing that you already have a history of such unwarranted requests for deletion, I have to admonish you to really read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion before you continue tagging further articles. — Sebastian 08:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Overtagging

Please do not add more than a few of the most relevant tags to an article. Five or six should be the most needed to give a good picture of the article's deficiencies--more than that, even with Articleissues, just takes up space and obscures which tags are most relevant. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to be thorough. I'll try and pick out the more important ones. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories for deletion

Please read the instructions at WP:CFD. The purpose of a CFD is for other editors to discuss the category, but we cannot do this if it is vandalised by emptying it. I know "vandal" is a very nasty word in WP, and I am sorry to have to use it. If you regularly patrolled CFD (as I do), you would know how annoying it is to have the content removed while the CFD is current. The effect is to prevent the category being properly discussed. IN AFD the notice says do not blank the article, but it is not disasterous if some one does as reverting is easy. With a CFD the only way of reverting is to go through all the articles and revert them, but you can only do that if you know want was there. On closure the closing admin was sort it out; not being one, I do not know what tools are available for this, but I suspect they have bots available to do it, with a lot less effort than it took you. Yes it is easy to do, but it is also destructive to anticipate closure. I observe that you are a relatively new editor, and will thus accept that you action arose out of ignorance, not malice. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. Sorry about that. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Politician Gavà Applause Records Salinan Huaorani language Wind generator Family Re-Union Moi... Lolita Wakashan languages Irish Sign Language Liberal Reformist Party Tucanoan languages Earth in the Balance Yellowcake Peba-Yaguan languages Indian River Lagoon The Writer's Almanac Pomoan languages The Left (Luxembourg)

Cleanup Mary Landrieu Samuel J. Tilden 2003 invasion of Iraq Merge National historic site Lordship of Ireland Metro Ethernet Add Sources Stuart Smalley Sicco Mansholt Klopotec Wikify Bedford Hills Correctional Facility for Women Giacomo di Grassi Trigger point Expand Kiowa-Tanoan languages Belgian Chamber of Representatives Max Cleland

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mjroots

A few too many questions, IMHO. Icewedge (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I might have overdone it, but I didn't see too much to really go on. Irbisgreif (talk) 09:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for being rude, but I'd ask you to think this through a bit further. You cited a completely unrelated policy (COI) in an area of Wikipedia (AFD) in which the candidate expressed no interest. Wikipedia is a big place. If you were running for RFA would you want people asking you trick questions about areas of Wikipedia you're unfamiliar with and not particularly interested in? And would you want them opposing you if they don't recognize the trap? He said he wouldn't close the AFD and doesn't see why any admin ever would, and so he even had the correct instincts and yet you're still opposing? --JayHenry (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I just get a bad feeling about it, okay? He's probably going to pass just fine, and it will probably never come up or be an issue, and I'm fine with that, I just had a gut feeling that I can't support or even stay neutral here. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a stylistic heads up

This edit put some punctuation marks following the <ref> tags. MOS:PAIC indicates that punctuation should precede tags. Thanks for your work on that article. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. Didn't realize that, as it goes against the grain of most MOS. No problem, I'll adapt. :) Irbisgreif (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please inform prospects when you nominate them

I just commented the entry for ISD out and notified them. 01:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I had contacted them via e-mail. Had they forgotten? Irbisgreif (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, we had agreed to add require confirmation on the prospect's talk page for transparency, so everyone knows that a person has been informed. I had added that as step 2. But I now realize that it probably would have been better to require already the notification to be there; that would make it more natural for the reply to be there, too. What do you think? — Sebastian 02:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That should be fine, I must have missed that detail when I added the name. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Irbisgreif. You have new messages at Atama's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your suggestion

Hi Irbisgreif,

well, I don't know whether I'm actually more willing to compromise than other editors. I do tend to give people more time to improve articles, find sources etc. Much of the discussion on Wikipedia is going on without thoroughly examining the sources. I also think that finding sources is primarily the task of the person who wants to write about a subject, so in many cases, I am asking for such sources or simply suggesting to look for sources.

I'm primarily a content-oriented editor (with most of my contributions on the English Wikipedia related to 9/11-issues), so if I'm not interested in a particular subject, it's likely that I will not engage in any large-scale discussions. "Politics" seems to be too broadly defined for me, I'll probably not follow the ongoing discussions related to such a large subject area, but maybe a sub-division, such as "International politics", "Politics of region XY", "Political theory YZ" or something similar would be fine. (Note: I have just switched off my e-mail functionality.)  Cs32en  10:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the idea was to start a wikiproject that would try and find NPOV balances on articles that have become a political mess, rather than one that writes about politics. But if you're not interested, that's okay. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually think that I've understood the essence of your proposal. Sorting out article that have become a mess, and are disputed, however, is probably more time-consuming than writing new articles. Being to general in scope may also fail to attract editors who are willing to go into the details of a particular topic. Therefore, I have suggested to start with a project of limited scope.  Cs32en  17:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was going to start with that article, and see if the project could be grown, organically. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that the rationale and scope of the project needs to be defined somehow, to be successful, even if both may change over time.  Cs32en  17:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to comment on the idea at User talk:Irbisgreif/Coaching. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This page seems focused on single issues, rather than developing an idea for a project. I'd rather comment if you write down an initial proposal.  Cs32en  19:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Shall I let you know once the project page has been made? Irbisgreif (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Just leave a note at my talk page.  Cs32en  19:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

PSRP

Thank you very much. Please, be aware that I also invited the editor with whom I had most disputes (User:Anonimu). Also, I better tell you right away about this quagmire: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list. Dc76\^talk 13:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting someone, and yeah, I've heard of that. Irbisgreif (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin

This is just to let you know that I've accepted the adminship request. Cheers. ISD (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)