User talk:Juliancolton/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

• Opinion essay: White Barbarian
• Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
• Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
• News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

Pertaining to your criticism of my comment in the Wildhartlivie deletion discussion, the page is titled with the word "Miscellany" - From a dictionary "1 a plural : separate writings collected in one volume" - thst's all it is as described on WP. My comment may have been brief and non-descript, however, it falls within the definition above. In fact, it says nothing at all about be descriptive. A simple "Keep" or "Delete" could suffice. So why does an administrator get involved with my one little writing? If it's a pedantic thing, let me know!--Victor9876 (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a community discussion rather than a vote, and as such each declaration needs to be explained sufficiently so the closing admin has sufficient context to base their decision off. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Then why are there ten "Keeps" and two "Deletes". These are terms of consensus, not debate. If it were closed out now, and the closing admin decided to remove the Manson matter over one point by a party who voted "Delete", I would think there would be some hardship coming towards that admin from eight interested parties.--Victor9876 (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it's ultimately your call, as it was just a friendly suggestion. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you

This individual[2] continues to place the word "Turkic" in, to describe the Great Seljuk Empire. This has been discussed on the talk page, ad naseum. His response to Tajik's and my posts on the talk page was a rant on how Turks make up X million people in Iran[3]. And after his derogatory comments on my talk page[4]. I have simply resorted to posting facts on the article's talk page[5]. Can you help? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I full-protected the page for a week, so as to avoid blocking anybody unnecessarily. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:TROP

Hello, Juliancolton. You have new messages at Kirill Lokshin's talk page.
Message added 12:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madloku Ganapathi

Can you take a look at this please? I put it on AfD yesterday, I had considered why this shouldn't be a redirect before nominating, and that reason was also explained in the AfD. Today, with one refuted Redirect vote and one delete vote, the AfD has been speedy closed as redirect, NAC, can an admin reopen the AfD or should I take it to DRV? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the same non-admin has also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 2009 attacks on Indians in Australia as delete. This is disruptive, I'd have taken it to ANI, but have already posted on your TP on the first close, so figured it's easier to handle at one location. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

To close out, another editor has already taken this to ANI, so you can ignore when you get back to your TP. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the September 2009 attacks on Indians in Australia one, and the other AfD seems to have been taken care of, as well. I'll keep an eye on the ANI thread. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbroken (Katharine McPhee album)

I would like to ask your opinion on how I should proceed now that this album has been pushed back for two months. Most of the Keep arguments were not that there were reliable sources for the album, release date or tracklisting, but along the lines of "I cannot believe this is being nominated, it comes out in five weeks." I still feel the only reliable sources used in the article is to verify that McPhee is signed with Verve Records, which belongs in her article not the album article. Should I add a second AfD or do you feel I should just let it go? Aspects (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. If you still feel it should be deleted, I'd advise you to wait a few weeks (perhaps even try improving the article in the meantime) and re-nominate it at that point. I tend to agree with you, so I'll keep an eye on it as well. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I think I will work on the article/removed bad sources/look for new sources instead of deleting right away. If I get to the point where I feel the article cannot be improved any farther and there are still no reliable sources, I might then take it to AfD. Aspects (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

FuelTrax deletion

Just spotted the removal of FuelTrax. Been offline for some time and would have posted additional information sooner. Can I get this article reposted and then have a go at improving the entry? Thanks! NCS2004 (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Restored. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coach

I saw your name at WP:ADCO, and was wondering if you would consider taking me on as an admin coach.--LAAFan^sign _review 21:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, good to see you're interested! Unfortunately, I'm rather busy at the moment with a few on-wiki things, so I'd likely not be the most effective coach at the moment. I'll be happy to answer any specific questions you might have however. Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance, but feel free to ping me if you ever need help. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/User:Linas. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Please review History of the flags of Romania

Hi, Juliancolton. If you have time, please review History of the Flags of Romania. Thanks. Secret Saturdays (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

MfD User:BIONICLE233/Trytofind

This MfD discussion resulted in "delete", and you deleted 12 pages discussed there. However, you left two more pages which had been included, User:BIONICLE233/! and User:BIONICLE233/0. Is there a reason for this, or is it a mistake? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the tips and friendly attitude. I hope to always be as civil and friendly to others.--Fartherred (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hope to see you around. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Michele Weiner-Davis

I see result was to delete -- Could it be possible to userify for me? I think with some effort I can make it into something; though it was crap at this point. --Milowent (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Done at User:Milowent/Michele Weiner-Davis. Let me know if you need any more help. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elect the Dead Orchestra

Hi, I see that you just relisted Elect the Dead Orchestra of AFD, the same info is also at Elect the Dead Symphony. It should just be a redirect. J04n(talk page) 18:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

New thread

Please help me what i must do with article Ani Batikian i had corrections. that was in website. Sincerely Yours! Henmor (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Henmor (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Dear sir, please remove all the tables. i will make all the necessary changes as soon as possible. I will write my self.! Thanks Sincerely Yours! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henmor (talk • contribs) 19:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

re: RFPERM

Hi Julian, I've now archived it. Sorry, it looks like I've been slacking a bit, it got pretty big eh? :). Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sig

Hey. Not really a big deal, but could you consider toning down your signature a bit? It's currently rather distracting in all caps and a black background. regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh hey, no problem. I apologize if it was a too lurid. -Artichoke-Boy (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Much better, thanks for understanding. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Zoids

Hello Juliancolton I just noticed you closed Zoids as delete. After reading the few comments left on the discussion page, would not a Merge/Redirect have been more appropriate? If you disagree, could you place a copy of the article on my subpage so I could work on it over the next couple of weeks and resubmit after I have corrected the concerns?. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 21:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Userfied, see User:Shoessss/Zoids - the OAR. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate the quick responce. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

At it again

Hi Julian. I'm going to have another go at GAN reviewing, here. I'll be using the same sandbox again. If you wouldn't mind taking an occasional look to check I'm on track I'd be grateful again! Olaf Davis (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem! I'll check in to see how you're doing, but I've no doubt you'll do an excellent job. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Juliancolton. iMatthew ^talk at 21:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, iMatthew (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How are you Juliancolton (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)? iMatthew ^talk at 21:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm well, thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you're alright? iMatthew ^talk at 21:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi - you deleted the article Video Profiling however I do not understand why? Please give details stipulating why.

Chris Londonslt (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Video profiling was deleted via our Proposed deletion process. This means an editor nominated the article for deletion and no one objected within 7 days, so it was deleted. However, this deletion is easily undone - all you have to do is ask. Would you like the article restored? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops...

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below; but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Script error, don't mind me... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Having a tough day, JC?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. :( –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This toy block is awarded to Juliancolton for blocking himself.[1]

So, want to talk about it? I've never seen an admin block himself for vandalism.--WillC 01:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thanks for keeping my article that i created, i really appreciate that.

Have a nice day! Cheers, -- Dwayneflanders (Talk) 01:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

WALL-E review

Can you review WALL-E for me (that is, if you aren't blocked )? Secret Saturdays (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look in a bit, if I don't block you first... :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Coaching

I was wondering if I should consider getting another coach for me since you have been busy for a long time. I also noticed that you "blocked" yourself. Would you mind being nominated for the village stocks? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it is fairly common for admins to block themselves...not stocks-worthy, IMO. Tim Song (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid so, unfortunately. I'm becoming increasingly inactive on enwiki, and as you've noticed I'm hardly an effective coach. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more assistance.

Re the stocks thing, sure, but Tim's right; admins block themselves quite often. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's alright, and I am considering throwing myself in the ring again in a few months, after I consult those who opposed me, as they really only cited two things. I understand that you are busy, as I'm not making even half my wanted edits here because of college. I might consider making a category on that page though for you guys. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User page

Where did you get your background for your page?? And how do I do that? Thank you! tommy talk 18:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to my notice at the top my talk page edit window? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

He wants a background image similar to the one on your user page. Gary King (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I meant user page. haha, how'd you do it? tommy talk 19:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just copy the code and change image and content? This is the way I, ahm, make my user pages. (BTW it's really nice!) Sebastian scha. (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Yep, Sebastian is right, but here's the code.

<nowiki>
<div style="position: relative; height: 1%;">

 <div style="position: relative; margin: 0 -1em; padding: 0; background-color: transparent; border: 1px none #ddd; height: 1%;">
  <div style="position: relative; margin: 0 auto; width: 825px; border: 1px solid #4E562C; height: 1%;">
   <div style="position: relative; overflow: hidden; height: 650px;"><!-- Height of the main image -->
    <div style="position: relative; overflow: hidden; margin: 0;">[[Image:<insert an image>|1100px]]</div>
   </div>
   <div style="position: absolute; top: 0; width: 100%; height: 96%;">
    <div style="margin: 1em; font-size: 95%;">

    </div>

<div style="position: absolute; center: 1em; bottom: 1em; z-index: 10; width: 250px; border: none; padding: 0.75em 1em; background-color:none;">

<div style="font-size: 2em; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-bottom: 3px; color:blue; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="color:white"><insert any text></span></div>
<div style="clear:both"></div><!-- Clear! -->

<!-- START USERBOXES -->
{| style="float:right; background:none;"
|-
| '''userbox'''
|-
| '''userbox'''
|- 
| '''userbox'''
|-
| '''userbox'''
|-
| '''userbox'''
|-
| '''userbox'''
|-
| '''userbox'''
|- 
| '''userbox'''
|-
| '''userbox'''
|- 
| '''userbox'''
|-
|}
<!-- END USERBOXES -->

</div>

    </div>
   </div>
  </div>
 </div>
</div>

<div style="margin: 1em -1em 0;">
 <div style="width: 827px; margin: 0 auto;">
 </div>
</div>
<nowiki>

Of course, you can replace the infoboxes with almost anything. Hope this helps! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Gracias! tommy talk 20:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Move request

Please move

Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge

to

Portal:Contents/Outline of Knowledge

(that is, capitalize the "k" in "knowledge").

I've already moved the subpages, so the top page should work fine once it is moved to match.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    00:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Virginia

Thanks for the Barnstar! I have to admit I did a little dance around my computer when I saw it was promoted. It's been three years and 1600+ edits, so I'm pretty stoked about it. Thanks again, and take care!-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 01:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured it must have taken an incredible amount of work. Feel free to ping me if you need help with any future articles. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

NEXRAD radar animations

Hey Julian, that sounds like a really cool project – can I help? --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 02:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure; see this site to get started. Be warned though, it takes endless time/memory/patience/cursing... :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

National Research Center for Women and Families deleted?

I was looking at breast cancer info on wikipedia and other sites and saw National Research Center for Women and Families recommended by a patient booklet on an NCI or NIH web site. So I went to wikipedia to check them out and they were deleted by someone named Stifle. I asked why and he said there was a consensus to delete but didn't say why. So I saw your name so I am asking you because I need to know if their info is credible or not. And if not, why are they recommended by NIH?

Thank you. You seem to know what you are doing so I thought I'd ask you.

Rutgersph (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Here we go, another newly created WP:SPA account "shopping" this topic. WP:MEAT--Hu12 (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Fall 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikis Take Manhattan (our cool team galleries)
• Streetfilms: Wikis Take Manhattan (our awesome video)

WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

148 Lafayette Street

between Grand & Howard Streets

FOR UPDATES

Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Please get rid of these redirect pages:

• Outline of Antarctica
• Outline of Northern America
• Outline of Central America
• Outline of the Caribbean
• Outline of Oceania

They need to remain open, so that the corresponding outline drafts can be moved there.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    22:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done NW (Talk) 00:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Cunard#Bad DRV comment

Hi, Julian. Could you comment at User talk:Cunard#Bad DRV comment? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Cunard (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

spam

I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched :  ?  04:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Template:Anglophone states

An article that you have been involved in editing, Template:Anglophone states , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.  —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  10:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Echo Movement

Thanks for moving this out of userspace, but the request was to move it to Echo Movement, as it is the name of a band, and therefor a proper noun. Can you move it again, from Echo movement, to the proper name? 199.125.109.19 (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

With regard to a brand-new article's name

A plea for your input, if possible? As I fondly recall...was it the counsel you'd expertly yet quickly provided...ummm oops! I'm a liar cos in actual fact I in actuality can't remember just now the context of that advice you'd given. Oh well.

Julian, anyway, my quandary, sir, is this. I moved a Wikipedia contributor's paragraph about an anti- Glenn Beck spoof website from Beck's blp (oops! actually it was removed by somebody else, while the matter was pending discussion on the talkpage; but anyway...) to its own article space, here: "Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck." Yet, my problem is, that's an awful name! I don't want to repeat the website's name as the name of the article for obvious reasons (for BLP problems, that is). But the name I came up is simply lacking. Would you happen to have an opinion as to whether a better name for it might even be "Beck v. Eiland-Hall"? As this, after all, is the name of the case receiving an overview at the realiable source of Harvard Law School's Citizen Media Law Project, per the link here. ↜Just M E here , now 11:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Btw, Julian, now I've started the thread: WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Glenn_Beck's dispute with Eiland-Hall over EH's use of Beck's name in a "parody" domain name, too. ↜Just M E here , now 15:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, the page is currently at AfD and appears to be on its way to deletion. If it's kept, I'll help you clean it up/find a new title. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

RfA

I have to say I admire how well you back up your reasoning when you weigh in on an RfA. Do you just have a knack for being able to find examples of what you're talking about, or do you use some kind of tool to help you research someone's edit history? I've been avoiding voting on RfAs because I feel uninformed in comparison.--otherlleft 01:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Basically, over time I've learned that claims substantiated by evidence hold far more water than those unsupported by links and diffs and whatnot. When I review a candidate, I take notes of things I like and dislike, and then decide which issues are most worthy of posting. My rule of thumb is to have at least one diff for each distinctive claim. Unfortunately, I don't have a tool to make my decisions for me. :) Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so it's really just about wading through a user's edit history the old-fashioned way? I have more respect good RfA reasoning than ever, now!--otherlleft 21:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter delivery

Please add

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge/Newsletter/2009-10-05}}

to the end of the user talk pages listed at User:The Transhumanist/OOK list.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    04:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

HTC?

I don't know those checkuser stuff and Sock stuff but Lordofweather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be similar to HTC. Darren23^Edits|Mail 12:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You know what, maybe not, just looked at some of his other edits, but there is something fishy about him. Darren23^Edits|Mail 12:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Closing Cat discussions

Hi, Julian, I opened [this] 14 days ago and was wondering if it is ready to close, a week is about normal, are you experienced in closing them? Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems there's a rough consensus to delete, but I'm not really experienced with CFD. You might want to ask Jafeluv (talk · contribs) to take a look, as I know he does categories a lot. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, ta for looking, I will ask him. Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Denton, Texas GA review

Greetings, could you take a look at the Denton, Texas article again. I nominated it for GA status about a week ago and I think I've improved it considerably. If you'd like to tell me which areas still need work, that'd be great. Better prose is one area, but I can only do so much when English is my second language. If you're too busy, I'll just send it to WP:GAN. Thanks, Mahanga^Talk 20:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Keysanger

In regards to your recent ruling in the War of the Pacific page, I would like to ask you why you did not block (at least for 24 hours) User:Keysanger. He was warned various times about engaging in an edit war, and he continued despite all of the warnings. However, when I was caught in a minor edit war, I was blocked for 24 hours. How do you base your judging?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I consider blocking an extremely serious action, one that's only to be used when absolutely and utterly necessary. Several editors appeared to be involved in that dispute, so blocking everyone would have been impractical. As such, briefly protecting the page seemed like the most appropriate resolution at the moment. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

• New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
• Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
• News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:TROP interview for the Signpost

Hey, is there any chance you'll be able to get some responses to the interview questions put together by the end of the week? I'd like to run WP:TROP as next edition's topic, if the material is in place by Sunday. :-) Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 11:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

DHL Delivery Man Award

Would you mind re-visiting the alt text for the above FLC? Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll get right on that. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Humors?

I am only good at appreciating my own humor and sarcasm. What was the significance of this [6]? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a not-so-subtle suggestion for folks to drop the WP:STICK and stop mercilessly hacking away at the dent in the lawn where a dead horse once lay...  :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a critic, but maybe something about monkeys throwing poop would have been a better metaphor?

On the other hand, someone might have objected to a comparison of editors to monkeys. And one of the PETA crowd would probably have objected to my being compared to a monkey. Oh well. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Bands

Hey there JC .. hope you're well. Anyway ... I opened a thread here about Bands and the WPBio thing. — Ched :  ?  20:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

speedy deletion requests

Please delete these redirects to make way for outline drafts from WP:WPOOK's draft space.

1. Outline of pseudoscience
2. Outline of curves
3. Outline of geometric topology
4. Outline of dynamical systems and differential equations
5. Outline of ancient Egypt
6. Outline of computer vision
7. Outline of differential geometry
8. Outline of triangles
9. Outline of general topology
10. Outline of algebraic topology
11. Outline of topology
12. Outline of recreational number theory
13. Outline of counseling
14. Outline of human-computer interaction
15. Outline of video gaming
16. Outline of neuroscience
17. Outline of Boolean algebra
18. Outline of mathematical logic
19. Outline of circles
20. Outline of linear algebra
21. Outline of number theory
22. Outline of group theory
23. Outline of clinical research
24. Outline of electrical engineering
25. Outline of rail transport
26. Outline of puzzles
27. Outline of graph theory
28. Outline of abstract algebra
29. Outline of computability and complexity
30. Outline of order theory
31. Outline of commutative algebra
32. Outline of polynomials
33. Outline of combinatorial computational geometry

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    23:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to thank you for the protection on Ernest Hemingway. The vandalism is particularly annoying when I'm working on the article, as happened tonight. Thanks so much! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

re alt text for List of Major League Baseball leaders in RBI in one inning

I've been through your comments and made the changes requested at List of Major League Baseball leaders in RBI in one inning, but I could use some guidance and examples on the alt text. Any pointers would be appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the change. Now I think I understand the purpose and format. Let me know if you have any other suggestions. Alansohn (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, I would like to have permission to use the Rollback feature on Wikipedia. I have been a member for over 3 years, and it is getting repetitive to undo or change edits that are not constructive. Also, I have contributed to hundreds of articles. This will be a big help, and I will not use it to revert good faith edits. Kevinmon (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure.  Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

My barnstar

Thank you very much for that unexpected present – it took some work, of course, but I had lots of helpful suggestions and improvements along the way. I can reassure you that I looked very hard for evidence of hurricanes and tropical storms causing damage to the buildings, but sadly could find no severe weather episodes to include. I hope that the absence of such data did not impair your reading pleasure... Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 14:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

:) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD cleanup - move needed

As the closing admin on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet-run peace movements in the West, could you - per consensus at Talk:Allegations_of_Soviet_influence_in_Western_peace_movements#Move - move the article back to the previous title? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think it might be a better idea to initiate a WP:RM discussion to achieve a more solid consensus, as it appears to be a fairly controversial issue. Any thoughts? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that an editor already moved it from an estabilished title and salted the redirect. I don't see why RM should promote his version; the article should be moved to the original title and then an RM started about the move to the new one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Continuing discussion about Joe Wilson

Hi there, last month you were involved in the debate surrounding Joe Wilson's page. I have just posted a lengthy explanation of why Jimmy Carter was probably misquoted and for BLP reasons the "racism" charge does not belong in the "Outburst" section. I'd like to invite you to read through it if you have time and weigh in on the subject. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

On a similar note, in the Joe_Wilson_(U.S._politician)#Outburst_during_2009_Presidential_address section there is a file: File:091009 Wilson.jpg that has been deleted, which is still on the page. As it is fully protected I can't edit it, so I thought I'd just let you know. Alan16 (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Thanks for the note! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A theory

Help me to understand theory that abuse of admin authority becomes insignificant after X number of weeks.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Almost all issues become stale after several months. That, combined with the fact that the alleged admin abuse was really a minor mistake, means that taking action at this point would do nothing more than open a can of worms. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Banning editor as "minor mistake" by an administrator is interesting concept. Unsure from where it is derived. A bit like a cop shooting somebody in error as "minor mistake."

Something only a cop would say.

Rather different than a "minor spelling error."

An error in exercising authority by many reasonable definitions is unlikely to be "minor."

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why you're posting in the form of what appears to be a haiku, but that aside, admins are not perfect. They occasionally make mistakes, and bringing up an issue nearly five months old smacks of grudge bearing, with all due respect. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Haiku. Yes, clever that!

So what's your theory regarding how abuse of authority is diminished in significance following a number of weeks?

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not sure you understand. Almost all issues, both on-wiki and in real-life, are rendered stale after long periods of time. Your best bet at this point would be to bring it up with the admin in question. Otherwise, I'm afraid this isn't likely to gain much attention. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

honesty

To be honest, as you say, your point isn't so difficult to understand.

I only wish my local parking authority agreed with your interesting theory on "staleness."

A valid metaphor -- raising question regarding your utter lack of a serious and thoughtful response.

Thanks.

Calamitybrook (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's really nothing more I can say Calamity. Have you brought it up with the admin in question, as I suggested? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Clearly you, as an administrator, don't take seriously the obligation of administrators to not abuse their authority with regard to conflict of interest.

In my experience with administrators, this is typical attitude.

Personally, I hold those in authority to an unreasonably and very high ethical standard.

This is obviously a great personal shortcoming on my part.

I obviously owe you, and really ALL administrators, my deepest apologies for my personal character flaw.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I can only advise you to contact Kaladri himself, as I don't think further discussion here will prove productive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell you how helpful that is to me.

I will engage in deep introspection to cure myself of my flaws.

Than an administrator would take seriously the notion that adhering to basic guidelines is important element of their function is obviously an irresponsible flight of fancy on my part.

Do you think I should really now NOT pay that parking ticket?

I could actually use your help on this question.

THANKS

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I don't understand your last post. If you seek further action, please contact the admin in question. Otherwise I can't do anything for you. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

With great personal respect, let me sum up circumstances that, as you say, are

difficult to "understand."

You are simply are uninterested in an abuse of administrative authority.

You offer no reason why passage of a number of weeks affects ethical significance of abuse.

I don't find this difficult to understand.

You seek to evade comment on an ethical laspe of your fellow administrator.

I'd speculate this is because doing so could subject you and other administrators to similarly normative standards.

Thanks!

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt here. Arguing with me isn't going to get you anywhere. Please contact the admin in question, else I think this will be my last post on the matter. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 11:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Bluntly put, you've offered no argument at all on this matter.

Technically, your notion of "staleness" is a non sequitur [[7]] which, by definition, is an absurd logical fallacy.

Ergo, we have no argument.

Thanks for your valuable thoughts on this matter.

Honestly, I'd like you to cogitate on all of this.

Am not hopeful that administrators view responsibility in same light as authority.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Extra comment fluff on deleted image on Joe Wilson

FYI I had placed a large comment after the file explaining why I'd put a hand-coded link to the deletion discussion ... which apparently caused your commenting out to leave some "fluff" in the article. Please feel free to delete my comment and link out of there. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Block of User:DreamGuy

I do consider the block of DreamGuy to be excessive at best, and short of assuming good faith, vindictive. It is highly unusual for an administrator to use a block in a content dispute rather than intervening by protection of the page, wouldn't you say?

DreamGuy is a valuable asset to WP, albeit a bit rough at times. However, he has never (AFAIK) breached civility or any type of edits that would warrant a block. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, edit warring is certainly a blockable offense. Normally I would have done as you said and protected the page (with a warning to involved editors), but given DreamGuy's history of disruptive edit warring, I determined that a block was indeed appropriate. I do hope that once the block expires, he'll continue to work constructively with other editors to resolve disputes. I hope this answers your question satisfactorily, but if not, I'll be happy to expound upon my reasoning. Cheers. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Far be it from me to argue with an admin, but DreamGuy, again, AFAIK, has not engaged in disruptive edit warring, but rather keeping articles NPOV, and free from fringe theories and cruft. And "cool off blocks" are hardly effective, I thought that was in the block policy?

Tagging an article is hardly disruptive, especially when other users are consistently removing the tag en masse (ie 3rr by multiple users). The article in question surely does need a NOTPLOT tag, and there is no consensus on the article's talk page, therefore, the tag is most likely well placed.

Surely you see the difference in keeping in line with what WP is not, and Edit Warring? But, meh, whatever. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not his actions are "right", edit warring is still edit warring. To be honest, it's hardly a cool-down block, since it is standard practice to take action against users who edit war. DreamGuy was warned and blocked for these same issues in the past, so he should be aware that edit warring is never a substitute for discussion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm just assuming then, that the other users who were tag-teaming him on the article have been blocked, or warned as well then. I would hardly think they would be allowed to game the rules. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Each user is of course dealt with individually, but if other editors have engaged in similar disruption, then yes, the appropriate actions will be taken. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Then, again, I'll say, I can safely assume if I visit the user's pages that were tag-teaming him, I will find warnings/blocks on their pages as well then? Especially one that I know of in particular who has demonstrated particularly contentious editing practices when encouraged to remove fan-cruft from pages? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't say for certain; but I'll keep a close eye on it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Although the content dispute does not appear to me to have generated any blockably disruptive edits, I would like to offer DreamGuy an unblock if he will agree to avoid editing the page in question for the original duration (just the article -- he'd be welcome to continue editing its talk page or any other articles). Would there be any problems with that? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you feel that would be a reasonable solution, I'll defer to your judgment here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wilson

Would you be so kind as to repair the commenting out of the now-deleted photo of Wilson at Joe_Wilson_(U.S._politician)#Outburst_during_2009_Presidential_address. It's not correctly formatted and has left some extraneous characters in the section. Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Julian,

The same arguments will be repeated over and over anyways. Until the outlines reach an impressive quality level.

RfC isn't the correct venue for inclusion (i.e., deletion) discussions. The outlines are already included on Wikipedia. They do not have to seek permission to remain. There is no policy that requires that articles acquire approval to begin to exist or to continue to exist. If they meet with disapproval, the place for the determination of their continued existence is WP:AfD. Do you wish to delete them?

So far, AfDs on outlines have failed miserably. The chances of a mass deletion on outlines succeeding is miniscule.

Don't worry about it.

A group of editors is currently trying to remove the shackles we have imposed upon ourselves. If they do, we will be free to develop outlines even more creatively than we do now.

It's a blessing in disguise.

The Transhumanist    23:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

CyanogenMod

I think you made a good decision given the AfD that you closed. The article had lots of keep votes, but no really strong justifications to keep it. However I think it's time (yes, just two weeks later) to revisit the deletion. Right before you deleted the article, Google sent a Cease and Desist letter to Cyanogen, which was covered in multiple news sources including The Register, CNET, InformationWeek, among others. See this page for Google News results. I think that alone would make CyanogenMod notable, however only the last one or two AfD comments reflected this, and I think if the AfD had appeared just a few days later the result would have been dramatically different. The article was undeleted and moved to User:Virdi/CyanogenMod, and it has been updated to reflect the Google licensing controversy, including sources. It still needs work with sourcing a little bit, but I think given the recent coverage that it will improve with time. Do you want to move the userspace article back to main space? Or do you think this needs to go through DRV? --TexasDex ★ 14:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the post. I know that this was discussed at DRV already a couple weeks ago, but I'm not sure of the outcome. You might want to search around for that, and if consensus endorses recreating, go for it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_September_25 was "Deletion endorsed, but allow recreation of an improved draft". So it looks like a positive result, but I'm not sure if that means moving back from userspace is acceptable or it needs to be redone from scratch. I think I could do the move myself, but what's the policy on undeleting userified pages? --TexasDex ★ 14:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The Word Alive article

My bad, I didn't realize that I should've added an AfD versus a db tag. Thanks for fixing the mistake. And the first guy to reply doesn't really seem to know what he's talking about.Krazycev 13 18:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin coaching?

Hi Julian. Being mentioned here a while ago made me think of giving adminship a try at some point. What would you think of coaching me? Olaf Davis (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, sure. I'd previously been rather busy, but I think I can take on a full-time coachee now. Go ahead and create User:Olaf Davis/Coaching (use your imagination!) and we'll go from there.  :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Juliancolton. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autoreviewer.
Message added 17:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 17:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment requested

At my ER, an editor said that I should run for adminship, but I'm unsure if I should run. I was hoping that you could have some advice for me, since you're my former coach. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 00:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well, it's your call, but I still think you're better off waiting until the beginning of the new year to run. It's better to wait a while and present yourself as a strong candidate than run prematurely. You're generally a great editor, but given the high standards currently harbored at RfA, the issues from last year might still prove problematic. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Please fix cut and paste move of...

Outline of recreational number theory to List of recreational number theory topics.

Then delete the resultant redirect at Outline of recreational number theory to make way for an outline draft.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    05:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The move should be fixed but I'd rather the redirect remain until there is consensus at the mathematics project for these "misnamed, misleading, and misconceived "outlines" (consensus there is currently against). Verbal chat 10:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Missed one...

Please delete redirect at Outline of computability and complexity.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    05:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a compelling reason to delete this redirect, there is no consensus to move the list to this name. Verbal chat 10:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Verbal, I had already deleted that redirect by the time I saw your post. Isn't it better, though, for all outlines to be consistently named? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Where does the notion that outlines are lists come from? It is consistent to call lists lists, and not duplicate other lists, indexes, or category functionality. Verbal chat 15:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Juliancolton. You have new messages at Katerenka's talk page.
Message added 22:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Katerenka (talk • contribs) 22:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

New thread

It has become apparent to me that there is an attempt to discredit Michele Bachmann by over-emphasizing her debatable distortion of Ezekial Emanuel's positions, while under-emphasizing Emanuel's written record and statements through cherry-picking supportive quotes and whitewashing those that counter the desired effect. Most of this attempt has been dominated by one user, Jimmuldrow, who seems unwilling to fully address Emanuel's obviously contradictory statements and writings. Now you have locked the page, which I suppose is understandable given the recent back and forth. Nonetheless, the health care entry on Bachmann's page is one-sided and incomplete, as are many other sections of her page. The behavior I have seen displayed in this process erodes my faith in Wikipedia as a fair source of information.Crackenstein (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. I'm sorry you feel that the article is incomplete; unfortunately, edit warring is unproductive, and requires that preventive steps be taken to resolve the dispute. For now, you could list your recommendations at the talk page, and if consensus supports implementing your proposed changes, an admin will be able to do so. Otherwise, it's important to utilize the talk page for all major changes, regardless of whether or not the article at hand is protected. I'm not terribly familiar with the subject, but I'd be happy to work to alleviate your concerns if need be. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Babe (1977) and other issues

Has the TC project ever passed an article through GA with references which required extra searching by the end user? I'm inclined to fail the article in 6 days if this issue is unresolvable, though it does have a lingering factual issue regarding subtropical cyclogenesis which remains unresolved. Also, very few people are reviewing articles for the met and TC projects as of late. In the TC project, we have one user with 7 nominations. While I admire other people who improve articles, throwing 7 into GAN at once with so few reviewers creates problems. I used to think I spread myself too thin by submitting 5 GANs at once. I have 2 articles in GAN right now. While I feel pressure to review preceding GAN candidates, I'm not planning on reviewing more than maybe one more GAN candidate, after Babe's review is done. I review 2-3, and others will review the two of mine, perhaps by New Year's Eve at the current rate. After waiting 9 weeks for my last article to be reviewed, I'm wondering if GAN (let alone FAC) is worth the trouble anymore within the met and TC projects. No wonder the projects are in trouble. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if WPTC specifically has any such articles, although it is generally considered acceptable to combine into a single footnote multiple nearly identical references, even if it means a bit more searching. For the most part, it reduces clutter and makes the reference list (and indeed, the prose itself) more readable, although I can understand your concern that it might be rather difficult to preform fact-checking. If that remains unresolved after a few days, I'll step in to see what I can do.

As for the other issue, it's not a secret that GAN as a whole is at times chronically backlogged. It's definitely advisable to take steps to reduce said backlog, namely refraining from submitting multiple nominations. Personally, I think it's often more productive to get an article up to a reasonable level of quality and move on to the next without worrying about GA. GANs can take a lot of time (even months, as you mentioned), time that could instead be focused on rewriting pages requiring help. That said, it might be a good idea to work out something on the project talk page that would help to make the GA/FA process more efficient. Perhaps it would be beneficial to recommend that users review one nomination for each one they nominate? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be helpful. It's something I've been doing since spring. At this point, it seems to be necessary. Then, you don't have to set an arbitrary numerical threshold for GANs. I'll bring it up on the project page. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Jin Lian Pai deletion?

Hello I wanted to know why the Jin Lian Pai page was deleted, I check with the masters and I know everything I wrote was 100% accurate. I don't see how it could be eligible for deletion when martial arts pages like this one [8] that say next to nothing aren't. Could you explain why to me please?Debo447 (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted in accordance with the proposed deletion policy, which allows an article to be summarily deleted if its nomination for removal goes uncontested for one week. The editor who proposed the deletion cited notability concerns in this case. However, I can restore it uncontroversially if requested; would that be acceptable? ―Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes please Debo447 (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright,  Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the Removal tag is justified. There is no addition information on "Jin Lian Pai" on the Internet. At least for Hong_Cha, there is a website and a video of the style. I usually don't mind if people add information to the Wiki but at least they should go through the effort of creating their website or create some sort of source or reference material for the content. I suggest the user include more relevant material to support the page. ottawakungfu (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism

You might want to watch this editor[9]. In checking this edit to Louis IV[10], I found a paragraph copied from The Cambridge Medieval History: Germany and the Western empire, By John Bagnell Bury[11]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, Emadam added this edit[12] to Conrad I of Germany article which was taken from this book[13]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on it. Seems they've already been issued a warning, so further copyvios might lead to a temporary block. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

Would you mind checking here and tell me what you think. Also, do you think that you have any time to fire off a few questions at my coaching page (I'm bored as you might be able to tell). Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Olaf Davis/Coaching

After an unexpectedly long wait, it now exists. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

• From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
• Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
• Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
• News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
• Dispatches: Sounds
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Effects of Hurricane Charley from FEMA Photo Library 7.jpg

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Effects of Hurricane Charley from FEMA Photo Library 7.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. jjron (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Restoring a sandbox

Could you restore User:Darren23/Fake? Thanks. Darren23^Edits|Mail 14:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont think you got my message on IRC so ill post here: Would you be able to restore this sandbox please User:Jason_Rees/Jasper Thanks Jason Rees (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I could use a little of the information you offered.

I made 4 edits to "Sustainable Development Strategy in Canada," 3 of them with templates. Do I have generally the right idea in how templates should be used? Respectfully,--Fartherred (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

To save you some time: Sustainable Development Strategy in Canada. Warmly, –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 05:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you applied the tags correctly and appropriately. Thanks for helping! :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Fartherred (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR weariness

Thanks for taking on some of the 3RR cases. We used to have plenty of closers, and (ahem) one of our most productive did have a little trouble at Arbcom. There have been some backlogs recently. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem; glad to help. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Your action on the dispute at Office Open XML appears sensible. It seems likely that one editor is going to keep earning long blocks. I keep wondering if an editing restriction could be imposed on one or both participants, or the article itself, but it seems that a lot of study would be required to find anything that worked. If I had the patience to read walls of text, I would look at Talk:Office Open XML#RfC: Can this article say that Office Open XML is a free and open format? to see if that gave any clues as to what admins could do. The other possibility is a much longer block or a complete article ban for the person who you just sanctioned. If the matter goes to ANI in hopes of a permanent solution it will probably just go round in circles since the case is confusing. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletes

Please remove the redirects at:

• Outline of poetry
• Talk:Outline of poetry
• Outline of mathematics
• Talk:Outline of mathematics
• Outline of water
• Talk:Outline of water

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    04:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't. Verbal chat 05:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Verbal here. Removing those redirects would be deeply contentious and possibly contravene consensus. Crafty (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

sigh... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

sigh? Does the burden of adminship overwhelm you? You're not being asked to amputate a limb. You're being asked to give careful consideration to the removal of redirects. Your answer, favourable or otherwise, would gratefully be received. Crafty (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh indeed. Adminship involves being stuck in the middle of complex disputes, and at times the only answer is to sigh. :) To be honest I'm not sure what to do here, so I'll think about it for a while and ask another user if needed. Thanks for understanding! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah. This must be one of those only human moments. ;) Crafty (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologise, Julian. You do a stand up job. Really. :) Crafty (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well then... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think they should be kept, because a lot of pages link to them. And even if those are removed, it looks like there's at least a few "permanent archives" that will probably always link there. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What you should do here is easy - inform both of the move-warriors that further moves to or from "outline of..." without any discussion on the talk page of the list/outline or requested moves will be considered prima facie evidence of massive disruption and will be met with immediate indefinite blocks (to the first mover, starting now, not to the reverter), and that failure to engage in meaningful (as opposed to pro-forma) discussion on the talk page of the article or requested moves will be considered serious disruption and will be met with escalating blocks (to either party). Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If they're contested an MfD could be started, and these are contested. However, it would be better if some form of consensus generally for the activities of the outline project was generated. Any lists that have been changed to outlines without consensus should be reverted. I don't have a problem with Julian's sigh, it's perfectly understandable. It might have been better if The Transhumanist had used db-move templates rather than a specific admin, but then I'd have put a hang on template on each with the reasoning "outlined" above. This seems to be more or less resolved (the speedy requests). Verbal chat 14:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Just adding that my request, though concise, was not critical of Julian or his actions here in any way. Verbal chat 14:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm here because I seem to be watching Julian's talk page, but this is a foot in the door for a very big issue concerning outlines. Those who have patience might post a centralized discussion at WP:CENT. The topic would be 'Consensus generally for the activities of the outline project,' a phrase used by Verbal in his comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree; this definitely needs a thorough discussion before it becomes a huge dispute (or, at least more huge than it currently is). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I definitely support the redirects to the more properly and unambiguously named articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Question..

What is the "Simple English" Wikipedia? Sounds like something I'd be interested in! tommytalk2me 17:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a spin-off of the English Wikipedia that uses only basic English, to make it more suitable for non-native speakers, children, and those otherwise unable to understand native English. We'd love to have you around! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What a great idea!!!!!! Um... now are the articles "simpler" (and just to the point) too? tommytalk2me 18:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be wise or rude, I'm just asking. It makes sense for it to be, I mean if you're new to a language it's hard to read advanced words and then once you figure it out, you forgot what you were reading. tommytalk2me 19:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think "simple" isn't really accurate. Ideally articles should contain as much information as possible while still using basic language, though in reality articles on simplewiki tend to be shorter than their counterparts on enwiki. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

gotcha. I will start there asap. Thanks for the input! tommytalk2me 19:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool; good luck, and feel free to ping me if you need any help! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Request

Check out these links: [14], [15], and [16]. Hammersoft is harassing BQZip01 and in the eyes of BQZip01, and BQZip01 wants this stopped. He isn't on right now, or I would send you the e-mail. BQZip01 is also claiming (rightfully) that Hammersoft is trying to own the discussions and manipulate them. He has requested my help and he really doesn't know where to turn. It also seems to me that Hammersoft is monitoring all his edits, as he is popping up wherever BQZip01 is. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

At a first glance, I can't see any significant wrongdoing on Hammersoft's part, but I haven't really investigated the situation. That said, I think it might be best for another admin to intervene; Hammersoft and I have had a few run-ins in the past, so I might not be the most neutral user here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, Admins 1 and 2 have both had run-ins with him. I'm now out of administrators I know. Any suggestions? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein (talk · contribs) and Hersfold (talk · contribs) are good with disputes of this nature, and they are usually willing to help. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Elting Memorial Library

Julian, I am not sure how to proceed with this article. I'm sure there is a lot more to be said about this library, but I'm not sure how the sources pan out. Most of the really good information about the library comes from its own extensive historical collection, which is all primary sources. However, the library self-published a book compiled from those sources about its own history. That seems to me to be secondarylike in that it was compiled by an individual looking back over several centuries of documents, but does that self-published make it fail because it's too close to the subject or simply because it's not reliable? DGG suggested checking the NRHP, but all it can tell me is when the building was placed on the register. Any wisdom on how to proceed?--otherlleft 23:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The article looks great. I'd suggest looking here for more information. That source is reliable and includes 22 pages of stuff to dig through. :) Hope that helps. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Your knowledge of that where to find things rather pwns. That ought to help tons! There may be a GA in this article's future yet!--otherlleft 01:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination against some Wikipedia Editors?

I use wisipedia often but rarely edit. On the few times that I do, I have found that those of us who don't edit frequently seem to be accused of being sock puppets. It's really a hostile environment for some of us and I hope you can help with it. Previous requests about National Research Center for Women and Children are a good example. Several different people asked it to be restored but other wiki editors just called them names. It's like 6th grade.

I would hope that wiki editor decisions would be made based on accuracy of the article, not how often someone is editing. Most wiki editors I know are college faculty (as I am) and don't have time to edit wikipedia often, and tend to just focus on a few articles that they are using or their classes use.

I hope you will restore and more important, talk to those who are insulting the rest of us.

DoctorDM (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations depend on same or similar IPs Which checkuser uses to see which IP addresses are linked to which accounts. Checkuser cannot confirm with certainty that two accounts are not connected; it can only show whether there is a technical link at the time of the check. While you may not be using the same IP, or share the same computer as the other accounts, this does not mean this isn't a connection. You created this account 04:41, 24 September 2009, and immediatly your first edit was here (04:54, 24 September 2009) requesting this topic. Another account was created 03:20, 4 October 2009, "shopping" the same topic as you and the previous accounts. This is inline with a long history of accounts used for this topic only.

Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection. Few people will edit tendentiously or argue ad nauseum topics in which they have no connection. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who was recruited to game the system and serve this organization's interests.--Hu12 (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Snak AfD

I was wondering if you might be willing to have a second look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snak. It was closed as no consensus but I feel the "just not notable" claims by the handful of delete !voters were very much disproven by the sources that were added to the article while the AfD was open and by the books that were presented in the AfD discussion. The two books mentioned by 86.44.36.76 were both valid and I've since added both of those as well as the book I mentioned to the article itself. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not Julian, but why would you be concerned about 'No Consensus' vs. 'Keep'? Your efforts to improve the Snak article further are certainly worthwhile, and they would be the best defense against any future bid to delete the article. There is still room for improving the article. At the moment the article reads a bit like advertising, and adding a feature comparison against the other Mac IRC clients would be useful. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. My reason for hitting 'no consensus' rather than 'keep' was that some of the arguments in favor of keeping the article were rather flimsy; therefore, I wasn't really able to find a strong consensus either way. As EdJohnston mentions, however, the difference between 'no consensus' and 'keep' is but 9 8? letters. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

9? Olaf Davis (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Err, yeah, miscounted there... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer both Juliancolton and EdJohnston, ordinarily I would agree that there is little difference between a no consensus and a keep, but in this particular case I would have felt much better with a clear keep. A no consensus leaves the door open for them to nominate it again and given everything else that has transpired with these particular editors I'd have felt much better with a keep. Two of the three editors were clearly engaged in meatpuppetry (documented on AN/I) and the actions of both left no doubt that the AfD nomination itself was in bad faith and done solely for revenge/harassment purposes. Yes, the article could still stand some improvement, but the claims of "nothing in the way of substantial coverage from reliable third party publications and fails all relevant notability tests", etc hold no water given the sources presented and the same arguments were used over and over again in these mass-AfDs. The patterns got to be pretty obvious; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konversation, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BitchX, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PIRCH, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WeeChat (2nd nomination) ... (A wikitable showing this stuff can be found here.) --Tothwolf (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Julian, I know we're not a social networking site and all, but how's life been treating you? Fine myself, and... It's snowing in NJ–again! ceranthor 20:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

TPS'ing! Heh, snowing. Try living in Yooperland. :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"It's GLOBAL WARMING atmospheric warming I tell you</endquote> ;) It's snowing in NJ–again! ceranthor 20:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ceranthor, I'm well, thanks. Keeping busy 'round the wiki I suppose. It's snowing here in New York as well. I don't think we got this much snow all last winter. :P –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Request

You recently decline me access to auto reviewer. Since then I created 16 articles with a total of 75 pages that I have created now.

Please See this page I was wondering if you grant me access now. Because I am active in splitting articles up and creating redirects. Thanks--Zink Dawg -- 22:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirects aren't displayed in Special:NewPages, and considering that you've only created 16 articles, I still don't believe it's necessary to flag your account with the autoreviewer right. Please keep in mind that it has no effect on you whatsoever; in fact, you really don't even notice you have it. Thanks for understanding. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Measuring article size query

Hi Julian - we've both just been contributing to an FAC discussion re article size. I don't actually know how to determine the size of an article in kb. How do you do that? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you're looking for overall article size (that includes wiki-markup and footnotes) than you can go to the article's history page and simply look for the most recent number between the user and the edit summary. If you're looking for more specific info, add User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js to your monobook.js. Hope this helps! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

<slaps forehead> Homer Simpson moment. I kinda shoulda remembered that hamiltonstone (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi I need some advice

Hi again Julian

I want a clean start from my Wikipedia history and have created another account (because I don't want my last name on here anymore). I know this is acceptable but I'm wondering how to actually go about doing this appropriately without any problems. Once I set up this new account (User:A4UDI), can I reapply for RB rights? Do I have to 'prove myself' again? And once I create this account, is it absolutely forbidden that I not use this account anymore? Thanks for your help! tommytalk2me 23:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for interjecting, but I believe that I may be able to help. Simply abandon your current account, never use it to edit again, and register a new account. To get rollback rights again, you will have to once again demonstrate that you understand the pertinent policies if you do not wish to publicly connect your two accounts. You may wish to read WP:CLEANSTART. Hope that this has helped you some, –Katerenka (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I plan on creating a REDIRECT page so that my "old" User page still redirects to the new account and that my talk page is exactly (even old posts) are still the same. I just want a new user name because I said/did some stupid things on this account tht I dont want to be in my history. Based on that, what would you recommend? tommytalk2me 00:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If you would really like a clean start, then tag your current userpage and talk page with {{retired}}, scramble your password and disable email, and create a new account. I'm not sure what the circumstances leading up to this decision are, but be advised that using WP:CLEANSTART to avoid scrutiny is expressly disallowed. Yours, –Katerenka (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's nothing bad that I will get in trouble for; it's because I don't want my last name on here. tommytalk2me 00:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have no problem connecting the two accounts, and I assume you do not having posted this on-wiki, have you considered WP:CHU? –Katerenka (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

OH let me check it out! Thanks I didn't know this was an option! Muchas gracias :) Will I still have RB rights? tommytalk2me 00:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Everything from your current account (preferences, email, userrights, watchlist, settings) will transfer to your new account. :) –Katerenka (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you for all your help! :) tommytalk2me 00:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI- that A4UDI account password is scrambled tommytalk2me 02:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting advice

Juliancolton-

I am contacting you through an alternate account I have created, with an IP address I don't think I have ever used. I do not want my main account associated with this mess. For several weeks an issue has been preying on my mind that I cannot keep secret any longer. I decided to come to you for help because I respect you as an admin and I respect your judgment. I haven't gone to ANI because certain administrators there, in their strict enforcement of policy, can end up antagonizing themselves toward the parties involved. If for whatever reason you do not feel comfortable dealing with this, feel free to remove this from your talk page.

I have been a Wikipedia user for quite a while now, and I enjoy fighting vandals, improving articles, etc. A few weeks ago I met with a friend and showed them my work on the wiki. I was surprised and pleased when they said they had an account on Wikipedia too.

Then they told me that they were one of a few people with access to a shared administrator account.

This is an issue of morality. I promised not to "rat on them", and I risk their friendship and trust if I do so. To my knowledge the account in question has never been used disruptively (for that matter, I don't know how an account shared from distant locations could possible function). But if I disclose the account I risk it being blocked all the same. The best case scenario I can see still isn't good. What do you suggest I do? Alternate Query (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alternate Query – I understand that you're in a difficult position, so I'll be happy to work with you to find a reasonable resolution. I think the most appropriate course of action would be to contact the Arbitration Committee's mailing list at arbcom-lwikimedia.org and explain the details to them. They will be able to review the situation discreetly and take necessary action. I'll keep a close eye on this over coming days to see how everything works out. Good luck and best regards. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the advice and the quick response. I'll contact them tonight, if all goes well nothing should be apparent. I don't want the account blocked or admonished, and I don't want this to become public and potentially become something like the Law/Undertow issue. But then again, I can't force what action Arbcom decides to take.

...I'll send them an email explaining the issue and my opinion. I don't think I'll include the name of the account in the initial email, in case somebody issues a reactionary block and brings attention to the issue. Alternate Query (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

. I didn't contact Arbcom- I found out the account is no longer shared. Sorry for taking up your time. Alternate Query (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, alright; but I still think it would be a good idea to contact ArbCom and inform them of what you know. Even if the account is no longer shared, its history may have to be examined. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The note is a lie!!

But the note is a a lie!! Why cant i delete a lie??--Dwayneflanders ^☺ 03:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

But if that did happen where is the evidence, and why was it revoked?--Dwayneflanders ^☺ 03:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Because removing posts by other users (unless necessitated by civility guidelines) is considered highly inappropriate, even if you disagree with it. That said, calling somebody's good-intentioned comment a "lie" is failing to assume good faith. Finally, Fastily is right, as I explained on your talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Come on now, calling something a lie is the best way to psychologically discredit a statement you don't agree with, but don't have the google-fu to refute! You're cramping his style. </sarcasm> --King Öomie 14:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note for anyone reading this page that it turned out Dwayneflanders was right all along, and that Fastily deleted his objection. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. You're right. Now MY style feels cramped. --King Öomie 15:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Request: move and protect

Verbal is disrupting the OOK and is moving pages from it without consenses. He has moved Outline of culture to "List of culture topics", a name the article has never had before, without consensus. The page has been named Outline of culture since last March, and before that was named Topical outline of culture since June 2008.

Please move the page back to the name it has had since last spring (Outline of culture, and move protect the page until this conflict can be resolved.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    19:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take this to AN/I rather than approach individual administrators, as the moves and naming are controversial. Approaching an individual administrator who is affiliated with your project is probably not a good idea in a controversial case (although I commend Julian for not getting involved after the previous request). Karanacs (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet before that it was a list, and it still is a list in content, and the moves were made by TT without consensus. The move to outlines would be contested and need consensus - which is what I've been asking for. Julian's talk page isn't the place for this discussion. Julian has continued to act in an exemplary fashion (so far as I know ;) . Thanks, Verbal chat 20:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As others have said, this is no longer an uncontroversial matter; in fact, such a move would be extremely contentious at this point, especially considering that I have been involved in the OOK project for over a year now. I really think we need a community wide discussion to determine where consensus exists if at all. I'm afraid I'm going to have to decline to take action here, though I will watchlist that page to keep an eye on it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is the OOK such a contentious issue? I just don't understand it. Users on both sides are getting enraged. --King Öomie 21:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Block

Hello I'm not the world's most IT-literate person & am flummoxed by the instructions, guide & template for requesting blocks on vandals. I use and enjoy Wikipedia daily but the vandals do spoil it. I've edited an article today (Daniel Delaney) which contained blatant vandalism. Upon checking the vandal's history I discovered he/she has performed many edits - often several per day and every day. Every one I looked at was clearly vandalism. You blocked the vandal in January but there have been very many recurrences since then. Is it possible to block/ban them more permanently even though it's an IP address rather than a registered user? By all means let them view & learn - but not edit. Thank you 93.186.20.149 (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: Did you mean Daniel Delany? The spelling with the -e- has no edits today. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Soap, yes Delany not Delaney. 93.186.20.121 (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Indeed, vandalism is a big problem, as you're probably aware, so thanks for helping with the spam! IPs often change frequently, so a few edits spread out over the period of several weeks isn't usually enough to justify administrative action; however I'll keep a close eye on it to see if a temporary block is needed at a future time. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

I think we're all done for now, appreciated. --Discharger12 (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Julian, since you didn't get around to reviewing the last FAC I nominated, would you mind reviewing 1997 Qayen earthquake? :) ceranthor 12:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

Can you please explain why on earth I have recieved an edit warring warning. Please look very, very carefully at the edit history of the cat: you will see that it was actually myself that created the cat, it was myself that first requested that the other user take their reverts to Talk, and it was I that actually provided a reliable ext ref, with the other user failing to do so as requested. In addition I only reverted twice in a 24 hr period, the 2nd time supplying a reliable ext ref for the revert.

You have been gravely misled by the complainant: the reason that they want to remove the "Rulers" cat in nothing to do with the "centuries" cats at all -> it is because the user is trying to empty an entire series of ""rulers" cats in order to rename them without taking the case to WP:CFD. I spotted their behaviour, and this has clearly pissed them off. Please look at that Users' edit history in the last two weeks. Their edit summaries at the cat in question are purely misleading: they are intended to obscure the true objective of their reverts.

Just thought that you ought to know the facts. Please never assume that the complainant is actually the aggrieved party. It is often actually the reverse. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A look at that Users' edit history on 7 October 2009 would be highly instructive for example. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

These two edit summaries - blanket decategorising the existing cats - even make explicit their goal of trying to empty the supercats in question:

• "trying to discontinue all the "rulers in Europe" by century categories"
• "trying to discontinue all the "rulers in Europe" by century categories"

WP:CFD explicitly warns editors against this type of behaviour: manually empting cats and blanking them for the purposes of avoiding a WP:CFD discussion.

I requested that the User take their desire to WP:CFD, which they ignored, and they have thus decided to take out their displeasure by reporting me to WP:ANI.

--Mais oui! (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a courtesy note to say that I am now logging off Wikipedia, and will not be back until next week. I must fly to see my father who is in hospital after suddenly taking ill, and have far, far more important things to be concerned about in real life.

Therefore I cannot possibly respond quickly to any requests you may have for further information.

Please remember that the people you so light-handedly deal out warnings to are actually just that: people. We are not machines or robots. Please consider that your privileges as an Admin to exercise power over other Users must be treated with caution. Your power to injure is just as great as your power to do good. God bless you. And God bless all of us. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Mais oui, there was a report at the edit warring noticeboard regarding that category, and the original reporter requested that action be taken against involved parties. I evaluated the situation and determined that blocking would not have been justified, so I decided to go with a light warning instead. You may well be right in your thinking, but revert-warring is not the way to prove that. I don't expect you to be perfect, but I do expect contributors to abide by behavioral policies; as an admin, it's my "job" to enforce this.

On another note, I'm sorry to hear your father is sick – I hope he makes a speedy recovery.

Best regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

someone else's page

• Hi Mais-- so you won't talk on your own page about this but you will on someone else's page? Very strange. Are you still avoiding a disscussion with me?
• Did you really want to know why Juliancolton gave you a edit warring warning ?
• Yes you requested that I take my reverts to talk first. That was the problem here! Did you think it is a game that if you ask first me first to discuss then I am "it," and it magicily become my dudy to follow your wishes-- before I revert your misguided edits? Wikipedia is clear that the burden of proof for changes lie with those that want to make the change. I consider having a real disscussion via edit summeries a fool's errand. I pointed out many times how it should work.
• Yes you also provided a reliable ext references to certain facts. Anyone can do that. But because you not disscuss-- or even read the edit summaries it would seem-- you did not see your "facts" were totally irrelevant. This was a question of when-- not who or what.
• No, I am not trying to "remove an entire series of rulers cats in order to rename" them "without taking the case to WP:CFD." I not that you have ever asked me-- but I do plan to take the to a CfD when I am ready. You find I have made the rulers cats system over many months and will take the few rulers cats you are refering to a CfD when I am ready. Some are to big to empty by hand and I never planned on emptying them all by hand-- only some of the small cats. And there is no policy against normal work on categories, which this is. The rule is to not empty a category AND take it to a CfD right after-- or to find one in a CfD and then empty it. Since I am removing articles to better categories (or in this case removing from an inapropreate cat) people have plenty of time to notice and dissagree if need be before any CfD that happen when I get around to it. Few of my changes are ever dissagreed with.
• The reason I am empting these cats is only because we do need the added complexity they would bring until about the 16th century or so. Maybe later. Look back 6 months ago. I worked on these categories then also. There is nothing wrong with removing unneeeded cats by making them empty-- as long as no one objects. But since Mais objects I will just save them for a CfD. I don't think Category:12th-century rulers in Europe is a "supercat" thou.
• You think that you pissed me off? When? How? I guess I way upset by the time I reveted the 4th time-- and hence asked others to look at it. But this was not to "get you." I saw We needed something to break the cycle that was happening. I was largely upset that you would never discuss. I also wish your father a speedy recovery. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 06:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Request re deleted article: The Final Destination (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack)

Hi, I notice that this article has now been deleted, and unfortunately I neglected to save a copy prior to this decision. I know, my bad. The thing is, The Final Destination's article now has a Soundtrack section consisting almost entirely of a red link. Any chance of letting me have access to the deleted soundtrack article temporarily so I can put the information in the relevant section of the film article where it belongs? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of The Tariq Nasheed page

I'm a representative for best selling author Tariq Nasheed.The wikipedia page for Tariq Nasheed was deleted and we cannot understand why.Is there something missing in the page we created?

Thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wennradio (talk • contribs) 23:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

<tps> Page was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tariq Nasheed. Community consensus was pretty clear. In addition, see WP:COI. </tps> Tim Song (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs 1991 Pacific typhoon season French Guinea 1921 Atlantic hurricane season 1977 Pacific typhoon season Caprolactam 1993 Pacific typhoon season Charles Scribner's Sons 1975 Pacific typhoon season 1978 Pacific typhoon season 1998 Pacific typhoon season 1987 Pacific typhoon season 1979 Pacific typhoon season Global symmetry Acrylate Diplomatic service 1972 Pacific typhoon season 1990 Pacific typhoon season 1920 Atlantic hurricane season 1976 Pacific typhoon season

Cleanup Hurricane Inez Hurricane Gloria Plastic bag Merge Basalt Bunny hopping Barred Owl Add Sources Helsinki slang Dextran Gründerzeit Wikify Collodion Log home Ahmed Rida Khan Expand Interactionism IEC connector Hurricane Allen

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) 10:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Your post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones

That'll be fine by me. Let's discuss it there? rst20xx (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Achievo Corporation

Got the message that you declined a speedy deletion on this. I went ahead and proposed it for deletion through the seven day process; it seemed obvious advertising to me, but I'm known to be very, very sensitive on that particular. It also seemed to make no particular claim of importance, and it's been deleted through AfD at a slightly different title once before. If you are going to decline PROD, let me know and I will move on to the next stage. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's not notable, it just didn't seem to be unambiguous advertising to me. I won't be declining the PROD, but I just tend to be cautious when it comes to CSD. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

hi tank you for your wellcom yes, I got your meanin and its realy true, Becuse my note Refrence is this Project About page! so; I start this article diffrently thank you again P.s: so sorry for this note bad editation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atarod34713 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

• News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
• In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Transhumanist (talk · contribs)

The Transhumanist has continued his disruptive moves, making double moves so that he cannot simply be reverted, despite the central issue not being resolved. He has also accused me and other editors of libel, without support, and misrepresented article history, the comments of others, and his own actions. This has gone on too long and he has had multiple warnings from those involved, uninvolved and admins. I ask that you take some action against him to prevent further disruption and until he removes his accusations of libel from his talk page. Verbal chat 05:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, sadly he's already been blocked, but at this point in time, since I've long been a supporter of the OOK project, it would be inappropriate for me to take any administrative action against involved parties in this dispute. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Remember The Word Alive that we deleted recently?

It's back. Someone decided to remake it, regardless of the fact that you got it deleted. I marked it for speedy deletion. Would you be ever-so-kind to delete the page yourself? Thanks.--Krazycev 13 14:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD Closing for the Kohana (web framework)

I noticed you closed the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kohana (web framework) as no consensus. I think you'll find that those supporting the article be kept put forth a very poor argument, and most of them seem to have wanted to the article kept because they liked the subject of the article. The supporters were unable to find a single reliable source to support notability. I realize that the supporters never agreed with the deletion, but if I am unable to persuade people with wp:notability I don't see the outcome as favoring reason. If you look at the page, and at the discussion, no where was a single reliable source ever found. Forum links, Twitter-like sites, job postings, and self-published blog posts, but nothing reliable. I ask that you please reconsider the consensus based on wp:notability rather than !voters for WP:ILIKEIT. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at that again, I still don't see a solid consensus either way. You're correct in that the arguments for deletion, while few and far between, are generally stronger than those in favor of keeping the article, although I don't think it's enough to justify classing consensus as supportive of removal. I do tend to agree with your nomination statement however, so you might have some more luck by initiating a discussion at WP:DRV regarding that AfD. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent closing of deletion debate

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Schuett you appear to have deleted the redirect and not the actual article. Also, there really wasnt "strong consensus". It was 8 to 3 for a delete meaning over a third of the people who voted wanted to keep the article. There was also major work done on the sources while this article was under deletion consideration. That might be an issue for deletion review if your decesion stands. -OberRanks (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Also, AfD is not a vote, so a proper review of the discussion revealed that consensus was indeed on the side of deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and requested undeletion with a deletion review. I think some people were "out to get the article" for some reason. You were just doing your admin job so thats fine. Guess we'll see what the undelete review brings up. -OberRanks (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance please

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal challenges to NSA warrantless searches in the United States. I noticed on someone else's contribution history that they recently removed a redlink to Legal challenges to NSA warrantless searches in the United States. It sounds familiar. There is no record that the nominator left a courtesy heads-up on anyone's talk page. I am troubled by this. If I had started this article, or if I had worked on it, I would have liked to review it, and possibly offer arguments in its defense, or improve it to try to address the nominator's concern. Or, if after reviewing it, I found I agreed with the nominator, I'd like to make note of whatever I might have learned from the nomination.

I'd appreciate it if you could either look at the article's revision history, and let me know whether or not I contributed to the article, or alternately userify it, so I can look myself.

If you look at the revision history, and I did make a meaningful contribution to it, I'd like to ask for the article and its talk page to be userified to User:Geo Swan/review/Legal challenges to NSA warrantless searches in the United States. I'll put a {{NOINDEX}} on it. And, if I decide it isn't worth saving, I'll put a {{db}} on it within the next week or so.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You have not edited this article at all judging from the history. Do you still want to have it userfied? Regards SoWhy 07:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No thanks. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Sahara national football team

I was wondering if you could take a second look at this page. I think the timing of closure was pretty poor. All sides were moving towards consensus that the topic was worthy of coverage on wikipedia, and starting to come to reach some common ground as to the best solution (one of which did involve the possible deletion of this page, in favour of a broader one on Sport in Western Sahara). Then the discussion was then abruptly halted, which I feel has prevented what would otherwise have been an improvement to coverage of sport in the country. WFCforLife (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. AfDs typically last for seven days, and that particular discussion had already expired by the time I closed it. As far as I can tell, there was no solid agreement on whether or not the topic is sufficiently notable, hence "no consensus". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it not have been an idea to relist the nomination rather than close it? Regards, GiantSnowman 09:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Relists are generally reserved for discussions with few comments, so I try to hash out a real decision for the more well-attended AfDs. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the feedback. Cheers, GiantSnowman 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A third person raised this point at WT:FOOTY#NF Board national teams, so I decided to list it at deletion review: Wikipedia:DRV#22_October_2009. Regards WFCforLife (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hey

Hello, Juliancolton. You have new messages at Arbitrarily0's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And again. :) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

One week? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Sooo sorry! Datheisen (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

copy edit

can you copy edit family guy.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

if you can copy edit fix what it dose not seem right word s out of place in the Family Guy artical.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

scracht that can you copy edit the family guy voices or cast that is in FLC.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My error

Sorry, I'd not seen that it was closed and archived, and was self-reverting even as you were effecting correction. —SlamDiego_←T 19:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

PROD vs CSD vs AfD and author comment... general question

Hello again--

I spend a lot of time the past day reading to death guidelines posted for all 3 types of deletion after your comment here[17] and I do have a somewhat significant question about how discussions for all 3 types of deletions can work. First of all, I'll say that my general feeling is that AfD is suited well and is appropriate for most articles with any basic outline of amount of content and that I have a good sense of G1 and A7 after looking at specific pages and "tests"! The concept of "standard lower than notability" being okay to avoid A7 was enlightening and thus came back to how AfD would resolve articles like that.

My primary question-- to what degree should article authors and major contributors participate in deletion and notification debates, and what weight does it usually carry if they do? My gut reaction is that they should mostly stay away or make only an opening statement like is done in mediation or arbitration before outside parties look it over, but I can see how more substantial involvement could be useful since they are more likely to be knowledgeable on the topic of the article and could clarify things. Then again, if it is their article they inherently might have POV matters, and to a lot of people an AfD is taken personally... and forget they can work further on the article in the meanwhile instead of arguing.

It appears that in about half of cases, the article was created and the editor then disappeared from Wikipedia, so there is no mess. In a quarter of cases, persons with a strong opinion of the article will step in quickly with keep suggestions but have information to back up their claims or offer links for further reading. In the final quarter, at least one person gets extremely offended and defensive in every measurable way, responding literally to every other comment and garbling the page such that it appears that there is a heavy consensus on one side (Keep, usually) even if it is just one voice promoting it. In some cases these people are fairly easy to brush off and something in their tone can be felt, but in other cases editors can be excruciatingly fervent... take this[18] very frustrating case where the sole voice in defense is the person using the source in the first place; They do not answer questions and insert blind subjective opinion or statements as if they are proven fact such as saying a site is "Fantastic well done information" as their evidence. Wikilaywering ensues and the only further contributions from said editor can be summarized as Them: WP:NPA!, Others: WP:POINT!.

How can such people be managed? There is one editor that I've seen in a few different places now who seems rather extreme about it and will only attack opinion of other editors instead of talking guidelines or consensus. Said editor has even said in one place that one person can comprise a consensus if they 'know' their sources outweigh the reliability and opinions of a half dozen other editors on a project. What can be done? I'm trying very hard to ignore insinuation of personal attacks and questioning of logic and am instead restating an opinion or re-asking a question, but even then... unlikely to get a reply that actually addresses concerns.

Since I love the AfD idea and know that it obviously takes up far fewer resources than ANIs and the like, is there any kind of guideline anywhere that can be cited in cases of persons specifically and repeatedly defending their own content without any use of logic in these matters, reason or policy to back up their words? It would keep a lot of things from needing to be re-posted, escalated or questionable content left on Wikipedia merely because objectors were shoved away. I've told myself that I'll never allow myself to be bullied away from something that has any kind of consensus or where my opinion isn't alone, as the overall quality of Wikipedia is (technically) always on the line and should be taken seriously.

Erm. Sorry that got so long. I tend to be extremely long-winded in an open forum. AfD, RfC and third-party opinions are what I'd like to do most of on Wikipedia in hopes of revert or admin consideration down the line so I can participate in ANIs and use Huggle, etc., so I'd rather have answers right from the start. Even a quick yes/no on author comments or a more precise guideline to WP:POINT and POV pushing would be very helpful. Many thanks! Datheisen (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I think I understand. Basically, significant contributors to articles being considered for deletion should always be notified so they have a chance to make their case as to why they believe the content should be retained. Authors/significant contributors are generally allowed and encouraged to participate in the duscussion, although in reality, most fail to provide adequately solid arguments due to their bias. If the author of an article at AfD becomes unnecessarily disruptive, there are various measures that can taken, including admonishments and blocks. Personally, as an admin who often closes deletion nominations, I tend to scrutinize votes from significant contributors to the article being evaluated more closely than I would normally. If they provide sufficient evidence to back up their arguments, then I'll certainly take their comments into consideration. However, and this applies really to all users, I'll give their vote less weight if they fail to advance solid arguments. I hope this makes sense; if you need anything else clarified, feel free to let me know. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comments. That sounds like what my "gut" feeling was and I have more confidence after your reply and I'm learning more with every AfD I see. On my first AfD discussion I was passively accused of harassment for mentioning that it was the main contributor of the article in question that was the lone voice replying and adding rebuttals to all delete suggestions. I never said it made him evil or that is was bad faith or he was conflicted, I just mentioned it in part of my evaluation on how consensus could be impacted by aforementioned opinion and weight via volume of text. It's duly noted that it is reasonable to consider the weight of comments by a significant contributor, and that making appropriate article corrections or addressing particular concerns with evidence can be of equal weight from any contributor. Again, thank you very much for your time on this... at bare minimum you've likely made your own job easier after (indirectly) getting me to run myself through the gauntlet of deletion criteria and discussion guidelines. Cheers~ Datheisen (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

I see from Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status that on paper (computer!) you have a potential vacancy (with 3 students out of a possible 4).

The reason why I am approaching you as opposed to the other coaches is because 5 have their full quota, 2 (Xavexgoem and Fastily) have specific types of students they are looking for, and I don't meet their requirements, and the remaining one (KrakatoaKatie) isn't as active as they used to be, and I'm thinking that I need a coach who is active a lot so that they can spare a little of their time to coach me!

The other reason why I am approaching you is that I've come across your name quite often (AfDs, RfAs, as well as a lot of times when you 'beat me to it' in Huggle!)

I hope that you will consider me as a student, but if you are too busy, that's fine - I'll just wait on the Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Requests_for_Coaching page.

Incidently, I should point out that I am going on holiday (at last - it's the first time away since April) for a week - leaving Saturday morning, and back on Monday 2nd Nov. Although my message on my user page/talk page says it's from today, I'll be able to quickly check messages etc tomorrow, but it's pretty hectic, so I may not! However, I can check messages on my talk page (or on here) through my mobile phone, even if it's tricky to reply to them.

If you would consider me as a student, but have any questions before committing both of us to this, feel free to leave questions on my talk page (or here if you prefer).

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, I'd be happy to help! Is there anything in particular you're looking to achieve from admin coaching? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm really looking for two things:

1. I'm a great believer in life-long learning! I want to improve my abilities as an editor, particularly with regard to the "behind the scenes" bis and bobs. I've been doing vandalism patrol, looking for citations for articles on the Category:Articles lacking sources list (but not done that for a few weeks now), looking at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for articles which have been tagged for SD but don't meet the criteria (so removing the tag - e.g. A "no context" tag on a one- or two-line article which clearly does have meaning and context), or changing it to a more appropriate CSD tag (e.g. from "no context" to "notability not asserted"), AfDs and MfDs.
2. I would like to consider trying a RfA next year (early to mid 2010), and would like to receive advice and coaching on how to improve with that in mind. I know that I have areas I need to improve with regard to admin type decisions (for example, of the Speedy Delete tags I've put on articles (excluding today), 41% have been declined and 56% resulted in the article being deleted - which is worrying to me, as I need to have a better understanding of when articles should be SD'd). So, an experienced admin and coach would be perfect to help me improve, so that I can be confident in my own mind that I would be able to use the mop properly, let alone being able to have others confident in my wielding the mop!

I know I'm waffling on a bit! By the way, I keep a spreadsheet of all my !votes at AfD/MfD, articles I've PRODed and SDed, that's how I know the figures (for example, in xfDs, I have been 79% with the consensus, 3% against the consensus and have withdrawn 9 xfD nominations following persuasive arguments!).

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've created a page User talk:Phantomsteve/Coaching should you want to use it! Now I', off to get packed for my holiday! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Clementi Police Division

It just came to my attention that you have closed the PROD for the above article, with the rationale being "a police precinct, non-notable". I strongly contest this assertion that this item is non-notable, especially when you consider that there are just six police divisions in the country of Singapore. Since the police divisions are first level sub-divisions of Singapore's national police agency, this amounts to deleting an item equal to the level of a state police organisation in a larger country.

I would therefore ask that you re-evaluate the above deletion and consider restoring the article. Thanks!--Huaiwei (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done in accordance with the WP:PROD policy. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the shockingly prompt response! ;)--Huaiwei (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you let one pass?

John014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems like a sock of Jpuligan 12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His userpage and his bio seems familiar. Darren23^Edits|Mail 22:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Got it - thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor Review

I would appreciate your comment, if you don't mind. [19] Irbisgreif (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done, but I really didn't have much to say! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for taking a crack at the spammers at peteforsyth.com! I need to do something better there...thanks for the support in the meantime. -Pete (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no problem; good luck fighting the spammers. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Any TPSers about?

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Rhode Island has been open for two months, and needs some more reviews/comments. Thanks. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: easyblock

The problem has (hopefully!) been fixed with this edit, but I can't be sure just because of the original weirdness that the script didn't, in the first place, catch that you were the blockee and ask you to confirm the block of yourself (a safeguard that's been around for a while). This extension–fix catches if you are the blockee and aborts if you haven't confirmed that you want to block yourself (since we can assume that it was an error that you weren't caught in the first safeguard), and it most probably worked; but don't hesitate to contact me if for some reason it doesn't (and if you do, I'll be more timely than the last time ). Yours, —Animum (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good; thanks for your help! Sorry for any inconvenience I may have brought upon you. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, nah, if anyone's to apologize for inconvenience, it should be me. —Animum (talk) 02:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul LaViolette (2nd nomination)

Hi -- I'd be curious to know what consideration you gave to arguments relating to WP:OWN in this AfD. I continue to think that he was happy to have an article, as long as he controlled it. regards, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I didn't notice any such arguments; could you please point them out specifically? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I raised it first, here. The point was then supported by a variety of people, including DGG and JoshuaZ. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how that relates to WP:OWN, but either way, it doesn't seem like it would have too much of an effect on the end result. Even had the subject not requested deletion, many editors agreed that the article doesn't quite meet notability standards. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

But several didn't agree, and the decision to delete therefore depends heavily on the subject's request. The subject clearly wanted to own the article (as was apparent in the penultimate section of the talk page, now deleted but I imagine you can see it) -- and when it became clear that other editors were going to continue to edit the article, he requested deletion. This is why some of us believe his request for deletion is not exactly sincere and/or motivated by privacy concerns. This is what I was referring to in asking what consideration was given to WP:OWN. I do see that no-one referenced that policy explicitly, but in any event I'd be grateful to know what you made of the arguments offered by DGG, JoshuaZ, and me. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your arguments were valid, but right or wrong, consensus still favored deletion. You're of course free to start a discussion at WP:DRV if you disagree. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. But I'm not sure how you discerned consensus there when there were at least five editors making an argument supporting keep that you believe was valid (meco and johnnyb256 were the others). At best there was a preponderance of delete votes, not consensus. I will consider DRV, but it helps to understand your perspective in considering that. thanks again, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am expressing no opinion here on the closing of the deletion discussion; I missed that discussion and am only here as a TPS. I would have argued pretty strongly for keeping the article if I'd been there. In a cursory review of the AfD, I'm surprised that nobody mentioned that he appears to be a published author. Unless that list is about the oceanographer he mentions being confused with in previous iterations of the article - and, judging by the subject matter of these titles, I don't think that's the case - it seems he's certainly notable enough for inclusion. The WP:OWN issues are, of course, a separate matter...  Frank  |  talk  16:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Historical figures archive

Julian, is this the best way to recover the old archive, or should it be moved as well? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops, good catch! I moved the archive as well for consistency all around. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Julian. Could you help me understand something else about protection? See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 22, 2009. I see that Thehelpfulone set up all of the TFA pages, but who and how is the page protected, and then unprotected once it has run? I see no edits that instate or remoe protection, and I don't know how that works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The Main Page is fully cascade-protected, so any template transcluded onto it (including the TFA blurb) will be automatically protected from editing. I still think it's a good idea for Raul to protect each one individually, since cascade-protection isn't really all that reliable, but what do I know. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't fully understand cascade protection, but in terms of adding alt text, what causes the blurb pages to be protected before mainpage day? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

ah, ha! I figured it out on my own! Only the TFA and tomorrow's TFA are cascade protected; the TFAs further out aren't protected at all. I get it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

I restored this article which you deleted following an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Final Destination (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack)) in order to allow content to be merged into the parent article. I don't think this is particularly controversial, but I figured I owed you a note. I have the article watchlisted, so if the redirect gets turned back into the article I'll help restore the redirect. Protonk (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the note. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Paul LaViolette

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Paul LaViolette. 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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello

"Thankyou for participating!"

Hello Juliancolton. Thankyou for participating in my recent RfA. I appreciate it. As you know, it failed (probably due to my own interference), but...there's always next year, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misuse of antisemitic accusations

I take exception to your close. Your closing statement doesn't even make any mention of consensus. You seem to have closed based on your own views of the article, which you should have added to the discussion. If the count was to delete, still your job was to evaluate the arguments & see which ones were not based on policy, not accept the non-policy based arguments you preferred. The appropriate and definitive policy is NOT CENSORED. The attempts to remove the article were attempts to promulgate the principal that reporting objectively with sourced information about notable negative feelings towards Jews is too anti-Semitic to tolerate. You lent yourself to this denial of NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my description of the situation was solely based on consensus. I personally have very little of an opinion on the article, though it seemed clear that most editors agreed to deletion. I'm not sure how NOT#CENSOR applies, but I believe my close was accurate and within the realm of the community's wishes. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Block

Please block 59.165.185.242 for persistent vandalism in Kamma (caste).Kumarrao (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that the IP is already blocked, though not for vandalism: it's just an open proxy (click here to see). -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 12:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Input request

I'd appreciate your input on this page. I've created a template for a single RfA row, with the further intention that it would be usable at Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship as well, by use of any of p/passed/promoted to suppress that column. Comments appreciated on my talk page...I'm going to ask others for input as well. I'm trying to make it neater and I want to make sure the process is reasonable before going all-out; I am considering converting the entire history.  Frank  |  talk  18:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

More available now.  Frank  |  talk  22:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on the Iraq War page

Due to ongoing and heavy editing of the Iraq War page, I ask you, an administrator, to secure the page from further editing in order to force editors to discuss on the talk page their changes to the page. Thank You. If you do not wish to change the status of this page please reply to me on my talk page. Thank You. Outback the koala (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You might also consider blocking 89.216.239.108, as this IP is the source of most of the unconstructive editing. Outback the koala (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The edit war was started by Outback the koala, read the discussion on the talk page, I reverted an unconstructive edit by another editor, user Kassjab. Kassjab made an edit that was not agreed to by other editors. After that Outback the koala started reverting me constantly and accusing me of making unconstructive edits and vandalism where there is none. He is also insisting constantly that a discussion must be made if to implement MY edit. As far as I know a discussion must be made to decide wether a NEW edit should be made to Wikipedia. In contrast Outback the koala is constantly reverting my edits to this NEW edit, while I am trying to keep the OLD edit (which has been there for six years mind you) until a discussion has been made. Again, check my edit, I am just reverting to the old version of the infobox and want a discussion wheter to implement this new edit or not, while Koala is pushin his POV. Nothing unconstructive. And is his only solution to the problem when somebody has a different opinion frmo his just to block an editor? If that is the case he has all the right to be blocked as well.89.216.239.108 (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've protected that page for one day, as I don't think issuing blocks would be appropriate in this instance –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No consensus

I'm curious why you closed this as no consensus. It seems to me there are 3 people stating that it is not notable for reasons given, and two persons voting wp:ILIKEIT. I was hoping the AFD closer for this discussion would look only at the arguments given, not the votes... or at least extend the discussion to attract more discussion. T34CH (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, it's really a stretch to say WP:ILIKEIT applies to any of the arguments advanced during that discussions. Indeed, a vote count reveals that consensus for deletion did not exist, and after a close examination of the opinions themselves I found no solid reason to discount any of the comments. Further, relisting would have been inappropriate as detailed in the relisting guideline, hence "no consensus". HTH, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I call the two dissenting opinions ILIKEIT votes because they didn't offer anything to back their position. They both agree that "nothing has been written solely on this report." and "this study may not get much coverage in scholarly articles...", but then give opinions with nothing to back them. I fail to see how this is "substantive debate". When I asked for the sources Occam and Aryaman claimed to exist, I was accused of being antagonistic. T34CH (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, ILIKEIT is not an all-encompassing term that can be used to dismiss all arguments you disagree with. Both sides of the debate set forth perfectly valid arguments, and barring any substantial misunderstanding by a majority of the participants, it was impossible to make a fair decision either way. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess it could also be a fundamentally different understanding of wp:N, given that both the editors agreed that the subject has received no "significant coverage" (that none of the "sources address the subject directly in detail"), but they still claimed it was notable. But misunderstanding a policy is still not a valid argument to keep an article. T34CH (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is true, but my job as the closing admin isn't to determine what's "true" or "false". I simply could find no consensus to back either deletion or retention. You're of course free to bring it to WP:DRV if you feel the outcome was erroneous. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it's true that you're not allowed to evaluate the arguments then I suppose you've done all you can. Thanks for your time on this. T34CH (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 27. I didn't want to template you because that seems pretty impersonal. T34CH (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I was about to thank you for closing the AfD so that work could continue on the article (thanks, by the way), when I noticed this. Why am I not surprised to see T34CH rollback an admin decision? Sorry, JulianColton. --Aryaman (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad I could help, but I've no doubt that T34CH is acting in good-faith. I don't have a problem with explaining and reviewing my decisions if contested, so I don't see it as an issue at all.–Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking for an uninvolved admin

Hi,

Wondered if I might be able to send you an e-mail regarding the Deletion Review of the "Jews/Hollywood" AfD. I was the nominator, and am looking for some more learned opinions before I make a public comment at the DRV. Mainly, I don't want to make public comments that could be taken out of context before I am sure that I am ready to stand by them (I'm considering an RfA in a few months' time). My experience has been that you tend to have a level head and good understanding of WP, so wondered if you'd be willing to let me e-mail you about this.

Thanks, Frmatt (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Certainly, feel free to email me. I'll endeavor to reply ASAP. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just sent it. For the record, I also sent a copy to Equaczion (exact same wording, just a copy/paste) to hear from someone on the other side of the fence. Frmatt (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Have replied with a question. Frmatt (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance and advice, I have responded at the DRV (just finished now!) Again, thank you...and I look forward to seeing you around! Frmatt (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. :) Feel free to ping me if you ever need any further assistance! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Both of those comments are unnecessary."

I certainly hope you are not referring to my comment ([20]), and would appreciate your clarification. Hipocrite (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry for the misunderstanding—I was addressing the two subsequent comments. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

• Interview: Interview with John Blossom
• News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
• In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin coaching

I saw that you were open for admin coaching. Is it possible for you to coach me? It would be highly appreciated. Thanks! —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 01:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Actually, I just took on another coachee (The Wordsmith (talk · contribs)), and sadly I don't think I'd have time for another at the moment; nonetheless, I'd b a happy to help with any specific questions you have. Apologies that I couldn't be of more assistance and thanks for understanding. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Changing संस्कृत to संस्कृतम्

In the wiki side bar, in the section - articles in other languages, wherever sanskrit comes, it appears as संस्कृत, which is the Hindi name. It should be changed to संस्कृतम्, the sanskrit one. What should be done for this? How can we change the name of language in side bar. Some body help me.. --Bharat Sawant (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bharat, Can you let us know which article ( on English Wikipedia) that you see the side bar with above name ? What you see is basically interwikilinks to same article in other languages, if available. -- Tinu Cherian - 11:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 10:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, good luck with your new role. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Need your help

I am having an issue with an overwhelming amount of Vandalism to the Wikipedia page Armstrong and Getty. It is not a very popular page, and because of that it is being marked up by authorized users even, and filled with misinformation, and I can not keep up without engaging in an edit war. I was hoping you, or if you are too busy with a minor page another editor, could help me to stop the vandalism. (Read just the section "The Hosts" and you will immediately see the rampant misinformation) Thank you for any help. Bullercruz1 (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've semi-protected it for now to hopefully alleviate the new additions of problematic content, so you should have a chance to cleanup the article. Hope this is a reasonable fix! Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! Bullercruz1 (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

Julian, when you promote FLs, don't forget to update Template:Featured list log. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, alright, will do. I was somehow under the naive impression that it was automatically updated by the bot.. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the White House - Fox News controversy

Many "delete" !votes likewise did no more than say, "WP:NOTNEWS." So if your judgement call is that the controvery was not notable, not how the voting stacked up, which I suppose is fine but you ought to have stated as such, IMO(?)

In any case, Julian, what should be done with the "2009 White House criticism of Fox News" article?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 01:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's the issue; WP:NOTNEWS is a policy, and thus citing it, proving that an adequately solid reason for doing so, is reasonable and taken as a valid argument. On the other hand, many of the editors arguing that the topic is notable provided little or no evidence and indeed cited no relevant guidelines or policies, hence my decision. As for the page,  Done. I hadn't noticed that the title was moved, so my AfD script evidently killed the redirect. Thanks for the note! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My view is to the contrary: those favoring deletion usually did no more than alluded to the policy "Not News" exactly as proponents tended to do no more than allude to the policy "Notability." Thus the tiebreaker would have to be what you yourself thought, that is, whether it was notable or merely news, per these alluded-to policies.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 01:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my opinion had very little to do with my ultimate decision. It simply seemed to me that all things considered, the discussion generally favored deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So, if I'm understanding your rationale correctly, Julian, you believe that those who cite notability guidelines in support of a merger of the article's info elsewhere in the encyclopedia should have their arguments counted as part of a consensus to delete?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 02:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It didn't seem that the suggested merger held much weight in terms of consensus, which is why I didn't address that in my closing rationale. However I'd be happy to temporarily restore the content so said merger can be preformed if necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to my reading of the AfD, by a substantial margin, participants argued in favor of some form of merger.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 02:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(after ECX2) I came here with the same question as JMHN. Deletion is not a numbers game, and both sides cited relevant policies (WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N). This should have closed with a no consensus, and I am considering taking it to DRV. There was no consensus, and there is a clash of policies. Under notability, there has been a good deal of significant coverage of the event (outside of the White House and Fox News), which argues that it meets the notability guidelines. The fact that this has been ongoing for several weeks now indicates that it is not just a transient news story, which indicates that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. I'll not rehash the discussion at the AFD, but I think you made a mistake with this closure. Horologium (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE, which is why I closed that discussion as delete. As I outlined in my conversation with MeHere, there was certainly a broad range of editors who agreed that the subject was sufficiently notable, but many didn't explain why, so in my evaluation of the discussion, I was unable to offer such votes much weight. I disagree that this is a case for "no consensus" but obviously I intend to keep an open mind over coming days. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you read Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed? It states, "If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept." There was no consensus! Jwesley78 (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've closed several thousand uncontested AfDs, and I believe I'm well-versed in that area. Thank you for your concern, I suppose. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So you claim that the consensus for delete was obvious!?! Jwesley78 (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No. As I explained in my closing rationale, it was not by any means clear-cut. I believe consensus was well-defined but not necessarily obvious. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. By policy "non-obvious consensus" implies "article will be kept". Jwesley78 (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. Admins are entrusted with the authority to determine consensus and implement it as they see fit, and that often involves exercising a higher degree of discretion to make more difficult decisions. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• (Seriously) Perhaps the wording of Articles for deletion#How an AfD discussion is closed should be changed to place less emphasis on the admin determining an "obvious consensus"?Jwesley78 (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Julian, can you provide your opinion on the suggestion to merge into an article called U.S. Presidents and the media? HyperCapitalist (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, since it's likely this decision will be contested by fellow users, I'd rather not express an opinion on the matter at this stage, so as to maintain a degree of disinterest and neutrality. Hope this is acceptable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Understandable. Would the creation of such a page cause any problems? HyperCapitalist (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Juliancolton, I did not know this article existed but oddly enough I searched for it a little bit ago. Your reason for delete was that many of the KEEP comments did not have reasoning. DELETE due to NOTNEWS is just as bad. That argument completely disregards any discussion and leans on the policy (not guideline) without using the specific portion that it relates to. Was it "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism"? I think most editors who have the amount of you time you do would agree that things like NOTNEWS are often misused i deletion and other discussions. This edit "Split and merge into Presidency of Barack Obama#2009 criticism of Fox News and Fox News Channel controversies#2009 White House criticism of FNC as per above. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)" Would be enough for me to KEEP since a central article might be a better solution. Consensus isn't a vote so you had every right to delete it if you were swayed one way or the other but I personally do think that the subject may merit its own article. It is my assumption that the article was garbage from the deletion discussion but poor articles sometime deserve work and not deletion. I have noticed that editors (I certainly have) respond in a knee jerk fashion to deletion discussions when the articles are poor. Hopefully someone is working on this subject and will present it in the future for consideration. Sorry to rant at you, I hope you take it as criticism to help you do your job here and not me telling you that deletion was completely wrong or you suck since I do not know of all the details on that article.Cptnono (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the comments. Your opinion certainly has merit and I appreciate the advice. Please feel free to post your thoughts on the WP:DRV thread regarding this deletion so they are more widely viewed. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

hi.... is there a way we could have a conversation about the creative inspiration entry?

I'd like to keep this article and improve it. I'm doing my best to make this article good, and i'm willing to remove whatever is inappropriate or whatever. It's actually not that easy to figure all this stuff out, and I'd really recommend someone creating a youtube video on how to do it best. I'm actually kind of quite discouraged, but willing to do more work for the entry to stay, because I believe it's important for wikipedia to have an entry on this subject. I tried to reference lots of articles, keep it neutral and articulate as to what creative inspiration is. This might be a little bit difficult for me to do because i've personally experienced it. Please help me on this, I'd like to continue to contribute to wikipedia, but honestly right now I feel like I wasted 3-4 hrs creating something that's not appreciated. Anyways, let me know how to best proceed. I can modify and try again, but I don't want to get into some flaming war over this, it's just not worth it.

Let me know what you think....

Steve 2008 Goodyear Inventor of the year for the goodyear fuel max tread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenwcronin (talk • contribs) 02:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Steve. Please don't be discouraged by the deletion; it was made with no prejudice intended towards you or any of your other edits. Indeed, everyone, myself included, has been in the same position a couple times. I won't be able to simply restore it, but I can however paste the deleted content into your userspace so you can work on it and re-publish it after a review by other contributions. Does that seem like a good way forward? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Chaco Culture National Historical Park

Was the line a yes or lno or maybe? 03:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry; it was a "no" in accordance with {{RFPP|fa}} The template appears to be on the fritz, though! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to laugh at what consititues extreme vandalism. Apparently today has seen 3 ips vandalise the page roughly a revert after every edit made. Perhaps a better threshold is needed because saying enough recent activity is extremely subjective. Just suggesting we have clear cut guidelines Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection has some pretty persuasive arguments for keeping the main page article un-protected. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I really can't say it really is all that convincing. I am discussing the limitation on a protection wide basis not just the featured article. I find it to be a waste of time for both invovled if the policies are ambigous. Extremely frustrating either way kinda hit or miss as to who will qualify what where. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Put it this way. If you were an anonymous user, wouldn't it be a bit discouraging to see the article featured below the prominently displayed promise that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit is protected from edits? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be a good reason to make an account......I do realize some ips do make constructive edits but the far and vast majority in my experience do not. I think that the article being featured is a reason enough to make sure only registered people change it while being featured. It's there for a reason presumably a good article but to leave it open just causes more headaches then what it's worth. It's one of many fucking retarded policies here. For example the one about templating regulars. For them especially it is useful because it lets them know their shit is screwed up. Just seems like it creates more of a headache then what it's worth and more work when we have to deal with the cleanup bullshit. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if you feel the guideline on TFA protection is incorrect, feel free to start a discussion on its talk. Otherwise, I have no reason to simply ignore it currently. Cheers –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

none of this is directed personally at you just venting a little frustration with the situations. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As a quick FYI, a newly created account would not be able to edit a semi-protected page. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 03:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup the difference between confirmed and not confirmed. I still think it should be protected when needed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:For and Against TFA protection sums up both sides quite nicely. If you haven't already, you might want to take a quick peek at this and possibly drop a line at Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 05:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Julian; just noting here for the discussion that Michael Phelps, which isn't on the mainpage, gave me a harder time last night than the mainpage article, which is watched by plenty and hasn't been excessively vandalized (note the seven-hour lapse with no edits at all). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar for a tough decision

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I don't know what the end result will be on the article deletion, but you made a tough decision that you must have known was going to be unpopular. This barnstar is for the hard work of reading through all of those comments to make the most informed decision. Jojhutton (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I very much appreciate the kind words! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Phelps

Hey, Julian, are you online? Can you see if Phelps needs semi-protection? Or do I have to go file one of those reports (if so, won't happen, need some sleep!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you (hold your own a few sections up, there :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yep, done. Hope that helps. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Donald A. Gillies

Please restore the page. The material on the page contained merely routine biographical facts from his homepage, with nothing controversial or copyrighted. The information on his book was not even from his homepage. Tkuvho (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It was still copied verbatim from this webpage, so barring any evidence of permission from the original creator of that material, it is considered a copyvio. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

One more?

Hi again Julian! Can we wait one more week? - The fix for my screen has been taking longer than I thought :S Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course; it's best to wait until you are fully ready. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Accountcreator flag

Hi JC. I would like for you to remove the accountcreator flag on my main account, as I feel I no longer need it. Thanks. Until It Sleeps ^alternate 18:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Instant rice RfA

I apologize, as I had mistakenly nominated this page for AfD. Please, if you can help me, close this AfD with a speedy keep. :(--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 23:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. I closed the AfD and finished the other steps. Cheers! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability of events

As you've obviously thought about this issue with the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Fox News – White House controversy, could I get your thoughts on the proposal Wikipedia:Notability (news events)? Fences&Windows 01:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll post in due course. Thanks for the notification. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ted Andrews and your suggestion of COI

I am one of the editors, and, yes, I am a newbie. BUT -- I have no conflict of interest. I am not associated with his publishing companies, his business, his occupation or personally involved with him in any way.. I just know that he has been a widely admired, respected "elder" of many, many non-mainstream people and traditions for decades.

I have attempted to contact his friends, former colleagues and others to contribute to this page, if they are able to leave impartial facts that point to his importance. Was this wrong?

The bottom line is that Ted Andrews is a household word in many non-traditional paths, particularly among those who practice neo-Paganism, shamanism, and other esoteric traditions. He is widely respected and admired by thousands, including his peers, such as Ray Buckland, "Father of American Wicca," [21] as well as these folks:

* A reference to his book, Animal Speak, being a "classic" in New Age circles: [22]

* Another review, by one of his peers in the alternative spirituality community, former President of the International Tarot Society, Janet Boyer: [23]

If there is someplace I should include these links in the article, I will, but honestly, I don't know how to go about it much more than I have..

It is simply my sincere, utterly NOT self-serving in any way belief that information about his life and his body of work, should be available in Wikipedia.

Thanks for your consideration. Owlsdaughter (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have never edited the Ted Andrews article; perhaps you're thinking of another user? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Help! I tried to respond to this warning on Ted Andrews' page that reads as follows:

COI -- Those of you brand new to wikipedia and only editing this article appear to be financially connected to the subject. Read wp:COI before continuing. T34CH (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidently there is no user T34CH and when I clicked "talk" it took me to you, Julian. I can't figure out how to respond to anyone around here. It is incredibly confusing and frustrating.. sorry.. If you can tell who posted the warning, perhaps you could kindly let me know, or advise him/her that I've tried to post this response, with these links.

I am ready to give up, but it all just feels so unfair. Owlsdaughter (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:T34CH exists. The first message at the top of the page, "Hi, I'm Juliancolton (talk · contribs). I'd like to personally welcome you and thank you for your contributions thus far." is a message to T34CH, from Julian. You can reach T34CH here. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 19:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Stormy Weather

Stormy Weather... ;)

Tempting? Come back and I'll restore it. Meanwhile, thinking of you. Durova³⁴⁸ 19:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Now somebody'll block me for contributory copyright infringement... ;)

Admin Coaching

Hey there Julian,

I saw that you are offering to be an Admin coach. Can I join? I have dipped my toes into pretty much all of the fields of work here on Wikipedia. What should i do next on my path to adminness? Any suggestions? Tim1357 (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe Julian has retired, although I notice he only put the template on his userpage, not his talkpage, so there may be a chance he's still watching here. I wouldn't say anything's for sure right now. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Buddy

Hope all is still good and you do return. Meanwhile, have some fun while you're gone. Get a girlfriend. ;) Even if you don't come back, you're forever remembered. Always the best, ceranthor 21:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect I also know the reason for your departure but I assure you it will never disappear, no matter where anyone goes or anyone does. ceranthor 21:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Departure

I'm sorry to see that you've departed the English Wikipedia, Julian. Your contributions were fine and many. Will we see you around the other areas of Wikimedia? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck

Good luck in whatever you plan on doing next, my friend. You will be missed dearly. Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 21:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Aww...

I don't often consciously notice when someone is dedicated to the encyclopedia over drama (since the line is so thin). You were one of the few people that I actually looked up to for your dedication. I know what it feels like to be disenchanted with the project, believe me, I do. I've also felt like taking a few months rest from the project is really good in both Wikipedia life and real life. Here's a few tips of advice: Don't think about Wikipedia for a while. Concentrate on your real life, check back occasionally, and when you're rested enough that you could pass for Rip Van Winkle, come back slowly. Burnout can be frustrating, so don't try to fight it, just go along with it. If you don't decide to come back, then thanks for all your work here. I hope I'll see you again, (X! · talk)  · @141  ·  02:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Budania AFD

After some thought, I think the Budania article should be kept. I left my reasons why on the page. I doubt any other editor would strongly object to the article being kept. If you deem the discussion complete, feel free to close its AFD. Thanks, Jwesley78 (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that you were leaving before I posted this. I hope I did not contribute to the cause of your disenchantment. I wish you the best in whatever you pursue. Jwesley78 (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Get well soon

:) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I still hope that you decide to keep entertaining us on your alternate account. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL--NotedGrant Talk 19:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Reason Why Julian Colton Retired

See here. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

An interesting hypothesis, but I will contend that Julian saw it coming which is why he diversified outwards by running and being elected as a coordinator of the Military History WikiProject (see: WP:MHCOORD) -MBK₀₀₄ 04:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Carlos Arroyo (architect)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Carlos Arroyo (architect). 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. --Megustalastrufas (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Your disinterest in the project

This should not be a reason for you to leave. I read this notice on your userpage and is saddened by this sudden decision. Please, don't leave.--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 06:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Big Max

On October 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Big Max, 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) 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.

Thanks for your contribution to Halloween Victuallers (talk) 07:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Your ArbCom General Questions

Dear Julian

I'm listed as an assistant to the election process. There has been significant concern at the election talk page that the General Questions, which already number 41, need to be rationalised and significantly reduced. At issue are the usefulness of the GQs for the voters and the need to maximise the quality of candidates' responses.

In attempting to bring the GQs under control, so to speak, we are asking users who have posted questions to consider conflating some with those of other users and/or even to drop some. The questions thus far have been coded into themes and numbered in a sandbox here for easy reference.

• User:Manning Bartlett has pointed out that your Question 2.5 and User:Sam Blacketer's 2.1 are basically the same. Would you be OK about taking Sam as co-author of a revised 2.1 that is on about the same thing but might produce more specific responses (do you think?) ... um ... something like:

"Are you satisfied with the balance struck by the current ArbCom between the community desire for openness and the need for confidentiality for personal information about parties to arbitration decisions? (Sam Blacketer, Juliancolton).

I've written to Sam proposing this; perhaps you might confer with him? You might have a better wording than my suggestion.

• Q2.6 is going to be very hard for anyone who hasn't been an arb or a clerk or a functionary. And there's talk that even a non-admin candidate should be discounted (not me, perish the thought). Do you want to reconsider it? (We're asking a lot of people to drop at least one question, given the stated limit of one question).

• Q2.4 "I've noticed that many arbitrators, both former and sitting, have tended to migrate away from mainspace editing as they become involved in the project's more political aspects. Do you feel it is important to maintain some level of contributions to articles even as an admin, bureaucrat, and of course, arbitrator?" The question seems to be loaded towards saying "YES!". What are your thoughts on this?

I hope you're not offended by my posing these suggestions. I look forward to your response. Tony (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh :(

Sorry to see you leave, and I hope that one day you find yourself unable to stay away. Although I'm not a member, I can say as a cyclone that WP:NONTROPICAL will miss you for your hard work on articles. Best of luck, don't be a stranger :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  14:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, good luck with your real-life situations. It's sad to see the message on your userpage, but some day, it may not be there anymore! And, I have to agree that what "X!" said is true. Those exact same steps happened to me when I retired in March. Anyways, good luck with real life and I hope you return in the near future. Schfifty3 23:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg

Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.