User talk:Retired username/Archive16

Deletion of articles on CIA pilotes James Kovalesky, and Harry Kirk Elarbee who took part in the abduction of Khalid El-Masri

Hello, you recently deleted the articles about James Kovalesky and Harry Kirk Elarbee, CIA pilots in the abduction of Khalid El-Masri. German authorities are searching for the CIA agents inflicted in the case, it has been the subject of a parliamentary caucus as well in Berlin as in the European Parliament. The articles summarize in encyclopedia style what is widely reported in the news, and they gave a source that is well sourced. If you say the source was not enough more can easily be found, e.g. this one, a renowned network of journalists. Many news sources published wanted lists, e.g. the Swiss tabloid blick: [1]. The discovery of the pilotes was also widely reported.[2] [3] Please restore the articles as quickly as possible. Happily ever after 23:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Per WP:BLP policy, our article needs to be attributed directly to a reliable source in a case like this. It just can't be attributed to another Wiki, which is an unreliable source, no matter how great its sources are. Feel free to recreate the articles with sources that meet WP:RS. You can appeal my decision at WP:DRV, but I think your best bet is to just improve the sourcing... since that's what a successful appeal would end up requiring anyway. --W.marsh 23:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote and showed, the wiki is not the only source, but it gives its sources. If you don't speak German you may not understand the other sources or be able to verify if they are reliable. In that case please ask a German speaking administrator to check it. Happily ever after 23:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

However, in the actual articles, the only source given was a Wiki, and what is in the articles is all you can base a WP:BLP deletion on in a case like this. I'm not really sure how to summon a german-speaking admin... you could try asking on WP:AN. But again, improving the sourcing in the actual articles is ultimately what you will need to do. --W.marsh 23:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I posted additional sources above, if you restore the article I am more than willing to add them. Happily ever after 20:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have requested a second opinion for you on an admin noticeboard. You are free to comment in that thread if you want. Hopefully there will be some responses forthcoming from other admins today. --W.marsh 13:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There should certainly be an article on the event itself, and if sourced the people's names can be mentioned -- I would think. However, in general the purpose of WP bios is not to expose conspiracies and hunt down fugatives. Steve Dufour 14:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi W.marsh,

As the author of the SourceWatch articles on Kovalesky, Hume and Elarbee, I've been following this discussion with interest. There's one statement you made which I think deserves a little more discussion:

"It just can't be attributed to another Wiki, which is an unreliable source, no matter how great its sources are."

Fair enough, however it's worth pointing out that SourceWatch has a significant difference from Wikipedia - it has a number of paid editors and interns who supervise the wiki. Now it's important to emphasize that that doesn't mean they've checked and approved every single edit to the wiki, and it certainly doesn't mean they're vouching for the accuracy of the particular articles we're discussing here. But it does mean there's a level of oversight and professional editorial control that's absent on Wikipedia.

Regards,

--Neil Conley 11:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that perhaps this sort of article is just a rare case of one that's best left to something like SourceWatch? If Wikipedia keeps these articles up, the pages will quickly become the top Google results for those names, and like it or not, many people still assume that if something is on Wikipedia, it's accurate... so Wikipedia can cause some defamation. I still am thinking that without English, third-party, non-Wiki sources... these articles just aren't going to work. But I will accept that it is possible for a Wiki to be a reliable source, if the identities of the people making the edits is clearly established. But then you're more attributing a claim to that person, than to the Wiki. Hopefully that makes sense. --W.marsh 19:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that raises an interesting question... if netzwerk recherche were to publish an English translation of that article, would you then consider it an acceptable source? --Neil Conley 10:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the group, and their webpage seems to be down today... so I can't really answer your question, sorry. --W.marsh 19:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Katia's Russian Tea Room

I closed the AfD with a keep. You must add cites ASAP, or it wil be the subject of another AfD. Bearian 14:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• I must? The sources are there, so an AFD claiming there are no sources would be in bad faith... it would have to argue the sources aren't enough, which would be a valid argument whether I cite them in the article or not. Anyway, thanks for closing the AFD, I will look at improving the article later today. --W.marsh 14:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• I added some more references. The article now needs a hard charger to take the info in the sources and put it into the article. I'm sure who ever does this can get a DYK. -- Jreferee t/c 09:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Question on Chicago Cubs all-time roster AfD closure

Just a quick question on the closure of the Chicago Cubs all-time roster AfD. In the AfD debate, you put the result was keep, but on the article's talk page, you put the result was no consensus. Which is it? Thanks! --Fabrictramp 21:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• That's weird, I meant keep. Dunno what went wrong there... I'll fix the talk page. Thanks for letting me know. --W.marsh 21:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks much! --Fabrictramp 21:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

On 17 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eliza Jumel, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 23:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Gary Hayes

You were the admin who closed the deletion discussion for the Gary Hayes article and deleted it. Just informing you that there's a deletion review for the article here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 18#Gary Hayes. Resurgent insurgent 02:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, I appreciate the notice. --W.marsh 02:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crisis management

You closed Keep based on consensus. In making your determination, did you take into consideration that all but 3 of the keep arguments were by Patrick56? Horrorshowj 22:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, although actually, 4 of the keep "votes" were from him, believe it or not. I had to remove one because it was messing up the AFD page formatting. The arguments by people other than him show a lack of consensus that this was an unacceptable topic due to lack of verifiability... that was enough for me. Only one person really seemed to feel like no proper article could exist here... as I said in the close, problems with the existing article could largely be fixed by pruning away the fluff. --W.marsh 23:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• I understand now. Sorry, felt it was best to ask under the circumstances. Horrorshowj 04:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion question

Hi there, I am Juan Lacort, and I work at the EU-OSHA. I posted the article taking the information from the EU-OSHA Web section. Please not that it is actually http://www.sheilapantry.com/oshworld/focus.html copying OUR site. We are aware of this fact and we do not mind, since this site links to ours.

I would appreciate if you cold restore the entry.

Thanks Juan—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacort (talk • contribs)

• As is the case with most material copied from other websites, the tone of that article seemed unacceptable for Wikipedia. It seemed to be a bit of advocacy, with phrases like "You should receive the same treatment at work as younger colleagues". Wikipedia articles should summarize information in a neutral tone. I can undelete the article and send it back to a deletion discussion, but unless the article is actually rewritten, it will just be deleted again. Ultimately, the article seems redundant to the existing article Ageism, you might consider just working to improve that article. --W.marsh 14:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this answer which I find perfectly right and ashtonishingly quick. I will rework the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacort (talk • contribs) 15:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Konstakuten

An article that you have been involved in editing, Konstakuten, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konstakuten (2nd nomination). Thank you.

(You closed the last AfD, hence the notice.) --B. Wolterding 17:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for the notice... more people should give these. --W.marsh 18:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A Gift to Young Housewives

On 18 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article A Gift to Young Housewives, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 17:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your tireless work updating DYK, Howcheng. It's appreciated (by me at least). --W.marsh 18:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

please restore : The Smith Bros. aka the BEATSMITHz

Hello - why was this page deleted? It isn't a fan site, its an informational discography and bio.

That content took a very long time to gather - and I would like to add it to WikiProject Musicians, but I can't because you've deleted it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.210.95 (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Really

The reason I removed the comments was because it was basically becoming an EfD about me, rather than an MfD about the list. I sent you an email, and am willing to continue the discussion elsewhere. I really don't see the benefit of continuing to discuss my merits as a person given what the subject matter is meant to be. Daniel 13:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• The solution was to stop replying, not to blank my comments. You also blanked comments I made that were directly about how the list should work. --W.marsh 13:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I'll see what I can find. And I have stopped replying, no? Daniel 13:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your remarks at the MfD. The hypocrisy of demanding that a number not be disclosed as too private while all sorts of sensitive and derogatory details are retained for all eternity is staggering. If the "I want to hide anything for any reason" policy applied to everyone it would be a bit less disturbing, but there would be nothing left of Wikipedia. The fact that an admin could have the nerve to make this demand, threaten blocks for violating his demands, and erase discussion on an MfD is just one of the many signs that there are deep and fundamental problems with Wikipedia. Alansohn 13:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it happens, and is unlikely to stop happening. Hopefully my comments about the bizarreness of the situation found some receptive eyeballs, but who knows. This is a general type of situation I've seen a few times now, and I share your frustration. --W.marsh 13:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

samuel jackson

the samuel jackson five >>>>> you.

petty wikipedia editing for the lose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.214.82 (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Huh? If you want a response you'll have to be more clear. --W.marsh 16:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Post-closes?

Can you explain to me this and this? Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but I don't see the reason for either one. Chick Bowen 04:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• I wish I could explain it... but as you'd closed them, they weren't showing up as closed in the AFD day log (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 12 in this case), to look at that log, you'd see that the AFDs were still open (which they weren't, when you actually loaded the AFD). For the purposes of WP:AFD/Old, to make sure we've closed all the AFDs in a given day, I had to reclose those two AFDs. I'm not really sure why that had to happen, or why your initial closes didn't fully work... it also happened to an AFD closed by GRBerry. Possibly some database weirdness. --W.marsh 04:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Huh. OK, well, thanks for the explanation, anyway. One more thing, though: what was that {{ns}} business? I thought returned a namespace, like Talk. Chick Bowen 04:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Dunno that either... I use a script to close AFDs... Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD.js. As far as I can tell the ns doesn't do anything. I wish my actions weren't so inexplicable tonight... --W.marsh 04:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, this js stuff is beyond me, but the script seems to add the ns:0 thing when the "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE" template is already gone. Why I couldn't tell you! In short, it's all a mystery to me, too, so I'm going to bed. Have a good night! Chick Bowen 04:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thamesde Radio

Re: [4]

Hi there

I'm concerned that this article was deleted the day after I wrote that I had started to add changes to address the issues of original research and non notability.

I have a set of published sources to back up much of the original author's assertions, some of which I had just added, and was about to remove those elements that did not fit with Wikipedia policy on OR.

I do feel the item is notable: It was part of the 1980's London Zeitgeist as the station was the breeding ground for a number of national figures in radio, it had more listeners than the BBC station for London, it appeared in the listings magazines of the time, received substantial press coverage and it piloted programme formats that were subsequetly taken up by the BBC.

Definitely worth a small article?

What do I do next? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksdeg (talk • contribs) 11:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly worth an article if you can add independent sources for the claims "It was part of the 1980's London Zeitgeist as the station was the breeding ground for a number of national figures in radio, it had more listeners than the BBC station for London, it appeared in the listings magazines of the time, received substantial press coverage and it piloted programme formats that were subsequetly taken up by the BBC."

To allow you to work on the article, I've moved it to User:Aleksdeg/Thameside Radio, which is in your "userspace" (which is sort of a sandbox that will let you work on the page freely). When done, you can move it back to Thameside Radio. --W.marsh 12:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Stephen King's Inspiration

Pardon, but although I do not have any issues with your deletion of the article Stephen King's Inspiration, I would like to see the older version of that page. If you can tell me how such can be done, it would be a good favor to me. Thank-you for your time.Year 2144 14:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• An old version is still available at User:LACameraman/Stephen King's inspiration. You will have to check the "history" tab though. --W.marsh 14:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi

A page recently deleted for having information on a band now only contains a link to your page, do you mind explaining for the Wikipedia novice why this is so.

Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingAuthor V (talk • contribs) 02:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• You'll need to tell me the exact in page to get a more specific answer from me... but in general, a band article will be deleted if it doesn't make some claim as to why the band is important. Charting songs, notable labels, notable members (e.g. from other bands with established articles), that kind of stuff. You can read the more complete guidelines at WP:MUSIC --W.marsh 02:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Your barnstar

Your barnstar to me seems to not have impressed at least one person. Check out this and then this. -- Jreferee t/c 14:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: my articles are copyvio

This message was left on my talk page but it was meant for you so I am forwarding it to you.

I wish to comment here, and I hope that other Wikipedians will read this. A couple of days ago I went through more of Mattisse's Supreme Court articles and noticed that many of them included parts that were copied directly from their sources, thereby committing copyvio. Mattisse has a history of disruptive use as you can see in his/her Talk archives. Most of this is due to tagging hundreds of articles a day and trying to make a point. When someone disagrees with him/her, Mattisse resorts to claiming harassment and saying he/she will quit Wikipedia. I believe Mattisse's history should be known when more claims of difficulty with the user come up. - Cyborg Ninja 17:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is another users view that I am a copyvio person. Maybe you should rethink forbidding me to have my articles checked for copyvio. --Mattisse 17:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Just don't tag things as copyvios if they are not copyvios. The 3 of your taggings that I looked at were not actually copyvios, and you seemed to know it. I'm not sure what point your trying to make, but knowingly listing non-copyvios for copyvio deletion is disruptive. --W.marsh 17:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

But Cybor Ninja is claiming the opposite. Do you not think it behoves me to have articles check that I am the sole editor of, since I am being accused of not knowing what a copvio is? This is the third time this week, counting the two bot notices. All the articles I listed were mine exclusively or another editor had made only minor adjustments. Any of my articles that had been edited by others I did not list. What am I do do to avoid these charges? I understand that it would be asking for trouble to create any more articles now, but what about the past ones? --Mattisse 18:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you copied and pasted content into articles, aside from when you were making quotations, you need to remove that. If an article only consists of copy and pasted content, the article needs to be deleted. If you wrote the article in your own words, then it should not be labelled for deletion. You were labeling articles for deletion that were not copy and pastes of the source you gave. You seem to be sucking me into your point-making exercise here... I don't know what you get out of it, but it's pretty silly. I've explained what a copyvio is, and why some of the articles you've tagged aren't copyvios. It's not very hard to understand. --W.marsh 18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My comment on Mattisse's talk page was not specifically directed at you, but included you, W. marsh. I do consider Mattisse's conduct and threats to be disruptive and this is hardly the first incident that has occurred with him/her. As for my take on this current copyvio incident: Mattisse was notified by a bot twice of potential copyright violations. Mattisse gets angry and threatens to quit Wikipedia (he/she has done this several times). Then Mattisse nominates his/her own articles for deletion per copyvio in order to gain sympathy from other users and in an attempt to have the bot criticized and possibly disabled. This is similar to how he/she nominated the drapetomania article, admitting that it did not qualify for deletion and they just wanted it edited. Many users have tried to reach a consensus with Mattisse on various issues, but unfortunately, their attempts are ignored. I'd appreciate to know what your view on this is. By the way, please view Mattisse's contribution page for more history. - Cyborg Ninja 03:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This editor has such a long track record of mind games and rampant WP:POINT-making that I do not even care to guess as to the sincerity of any of his/her actions. The copyvio tags have been removed from articles that are not in fact copyvios, so I'm satisfied that this particular issue no longer seems to be in danger of doing damage to the article namespace. That's enough for me.--W.marsh 13:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion of Mudgirls article?

Hello,

I'm writing to request an un-deletion of the Mudgirls article you (understandably) recently deleted. I have found two magazine citations. One of them is for an article that has yet to be published (in the Deecember 2007 issue of Herizons magazine), so it may not be acceptable. The other seems to me to be within Wikipedia's codes, and hopefully provides sufficient grounds for notability. I am waiting for other sources to reply with their citation details. I wasn't sure where to put this info, but the articles for deletion page has "don't edit this page" written on it, so I'm putting it here.

Emcjagger 17:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, Desiree (July/August), "Profile", Cottage, vol. 16, no. 3, p. 12 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

Nicol, Janet (December), "The Dirt on Mud Houses", Herizons, vol. 3, no. 21, p. 12 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

I'm listening. The problem is I can't find the "Cottage" magazine article online, so there's really no way to assess if it's a 20 word blurb or a longer, detailed article that gives a lot of information to use in the Wikipedia article. If you could give me a bit more detail about what's in the article, that would be helpful. However, I can just go ahead and make a copy of the deleted article available for you to work on it, with an emphasis on referencing. Once some references have been added, you should be able to move it back to the article namespace. Let me know. --W.marsh 18:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize

I will remove the copyvio's. Please forgive me. I lost my cool for a time there. I am sorry. sincerely, --Mattisse 03:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed all from lists and removed templates. Again I apoligize. I just flipped out. No excuse. Regards, --Mattisse 04:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

warhawk speedy deletion

Ok, I am here. Here is why I need Warhawk to be deleted: On the talk page of WP:VG we discussed that Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game) is now most likely what someone is looking for when they search Warhawk. I need Warhawk to be deleted so I can move Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game) to it. Warhawk (disambiguation) will cover Warhawk already. Thanks for asking.--Playstationdude 21:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• done --W.marsh 23:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I specifically opposed this move, and asked him to take it to WP:RM where it could be discussed. This has not been done. There was no disucssion, only my disapproval with the move. See the comments that I'm referring to at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Warhawk_revert_war. Could you please revert this and send it to WP:RM. There is no way that a recent Multiplayer sequel takes precedence over all over war hawks combined, including the original game! - hahnchen 08:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The discussion (now found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/archive32#Warhawk revert war) did not support moving. In fact, it ended with Playstationdude claiming he would bring up the matter at WP:RM. Instead, it appears he came here and asked you to carry out the unsupported move. Please revert. I will do it myself if necessary, but it's better for the admin to self-revert when possible. Pagrashtak 17:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, sorry, guess I should have looked more closely. I did reject doing the move at first but kept getting pestered. My mistake. --W.marsh 17:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
        • No problem; easily fixed. Thanks for the quick response. Pagrashtak 18:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC

I'm sure this will be called "canvassing", but I don't care. Do you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2 3? --NE2 23:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind, can you advise me on what I should do now? I started rewriting the articles to be more clear, both where I used "deleted" and where I had not yet gotten to "decommissioned". Rschen7754 has reverted most of the edits, including several where they were clear improvements: [5][6][7]. Do you have any advice? Thank you. --NE2 20:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't personally think "deleted" is very good wording. You suggest "became a county road/city street", or "removed from the state highway system" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads, those sound a bit more clear. I might say "delisted as a state highway" but I have no idea if that's accurate. Rather than focusing on your behavior, there should really just be a RFC on what language to use. Making actions to the articles that are just going to get reverted seems premature. --W.marsh 22:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually used clear wording like that, in several places replacing "deleted" with other terms. Did you look at the diffs above? --NE2 22:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm your wording in the diffs seems much preferable to Rschen's. I guess my comment stands though, it seems like a big deal, but we'll live if the articles still used "decomissioned"/"deleted" wording for another few weeks. There should be a centralized discussion about this somewhere, perhaps if there's a roads manual of style or something, you know those talk pages better than me. Open an RFC on that discussion, get consensus... speak clearly, it seems like you're on the right side of the issue. The RFC shouldn't be just about your behavior... that they keep doing this to you is pretty weird and counterproductive. --W.marsh 22:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've opened an RFC on WT:HWY, and it seems to be going nowhere, just like all the previous discussions. --NE2 22:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to chime in there, but no promises... they probably like me about as much as they like you. The only real next step would seem to be ArbCom, as far as I can tell. They seem to always leap to RFCs against you whenever there's a disagreement, there was even an attempted ArbCom case as I recall, and at least one arbitrator seemed sympathetic to the idea that you're being treated unfairly. I don't know if they'd accept such a case, but if they did, ArbCom could implement solutions that might actually help, such as revert bans. --W.marsh 22:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Tribes (game)

[8] isn't 3:2 no consensus instead of delete ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

By head-counting, yes, 3 to 2 votes is a "no consensus" close. But AFD is not a vote, strength of argument can make a difference. Your keep comment was weak, "lack of information" is actually a real reason we have to delete articles, not keep them, see WP:V, if we can't verify the claims of an article, we really can't have that article. The other keep comment said that this was a "game, not a game suppliment" was a reason not to delete, but that's irrelevent, he also said "Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion". That was worth more consideration, but he's a bit confused. Lack of sources cited in the article is grounds for improvement, but if no one can show the sources even exist, it's grounds for deletion, again per WP:V and to some extent WP:N. As the delete votes were based on these core policies and guidelines, they made a much stronger case, and it would have been a mistake to keep the article, given the demonstrated lack of sources.

If sources do exist, I'll reconsider. You can also appeal my decision at WP:DRV if you wish; I thank you for coming to me first. --W.marsh 15:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, fair enough. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Warhawk again

Here is what really happened: We had that talk on the wp:vg talk page like you know. Then after reviewing the process I decided to nominate that page for regular deletion instead of go to wp:rm. I even told User:Hahnchen what I was doing on the talk page, but he never returned to me. After I made it a regular nomination User:Rjd0060 contacted me and told me he was putting it up for speedy deletion (see my talk page). I am not to blame for the speedy deletion. I don't know what is up with User:Pagrashtak. He seems to want to delete and ruin the Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game) as much as he can without braking the rules. He has put up for side articles and templates that have to do with it to be deleted. The fact is that there is nothing wrong with Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game) being Warhawk. Also, no one contacted me about the revert of Warhawk or discussion of it.--Playstationdude 22:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• My understanding of Dab page policy is that since multiple things can be called "warhawk", and there's no clear original, and no huge frontrunner in terms of popularity, is that Warhawk should be a straight dab page. You might propose it on WP:RM and get more consensus, but considering 3 people have come to me to object to the move, there is clearly a problem here and I'm not going to re-do the move at this time. --W.marsh 22:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If you'll look at the deletion discussions, you'll see that other editors agree with me. The problem does not lie with me, but with your misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Playstationdude, I suggest you read WP:NOT and related policies before you continue. Pagrashtak 16:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

AFD for Vee Vee

Can you explain how this was a "keep"? If anything, it should have been a "no consensus" which results in a keep. However, I think you should have relisted the AFD in an attempt to reach a consensus rather than closing the discussion after a single vote. Jauerback 14:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well in this case the single vote referred to a guideline that is clear. The guideline says "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article". So it clearly calls for a redirect at most, not deletion. --W.marsh 14:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A request for recusal

Given that you have characterized my activities as "practically pathological" I would appreciate it if you would recuse yourself from closing AFDs in which I am the nominator or heavily involved. Otto4711 17:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough request, but I don't take it into account who's made a nomination or been heavily involved them, just the strength of arguments. Offhand I would say I closed most AFDs today the way that you argued. If there are any specific issues where you think I closed an AFD wrongly and it was because of your involvement, I will reconsider. But with AFD so badly backlogged, and me the major closer of non-obvious AFDs lately, I don't think it's in AFDs best interest for me to stop closing AFDs right now. I noticed you had commented in a great deal of the ones that were still open. I don't think it's realistic for me to recuse myself just because we had a disagreement once... I've had disagreements with a lot of people. My AFD decisions though do not seem to be affected by that... in the past few hundred AFDs I've closed during the recent backlog, I've been challenged at DRV just twice and unanimously endorsed both times. --W.marsh 17:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think you closed the Blue Harvest AFD incorrectly but not outside your discretion. I'm disappointed that it does not appear that you took the quality of the professed sources into account as I believe them to be obviously trivial passing mentions of the code name that don't satisfy WP:N. I find all too often that editors simply count Ghits and claim notability based on the results and that closing admins give weight to those !votes. Were I an admin looking at that AFD I would feel the need to evaluate the quality of the sources that the keepers were offering. What appears to me to be very poor keep arguments coupled with your comments in the Dammit Janet AFD did raise the question of bias in my mind. I certainly don't expect you never to close an AFD in which I'm involved; that wouldn't be reasonable. But if there's controversy then a recusal might be in order. Appreciate your consideration. Otto4711 18:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• In that particular AFD, there seemed to be no consensus to delete outright. A lot of merger-related suggestions were made in the AFD, some of which might have been better ideas than keeping it as a standalone article, but there'd didn't seem to be a strong consensus. I'm sure some admins would have gone a bit further in forcing a merge of some sort to come about, but I've never felt comfortable doing that unless there's a solid consensus regarding the merge. After all, the purpose of AFD is ultimately to decide "delete" or "don't delete", merging, turning into a dab page, etc. are editorial decisions. I think this a difference of opinions on AFD closing styles, not some agenda I have against you. --W.marsh 18:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

External links -->YouTube

Do you think some high quality YouTube videos that are relevant to a topic could be placed under external links? 74.130.141.7 18:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

In some cases, I think so. But it's a complicated issue... the reliability and copyright status of the video in question needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. --W.marsh 18:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Animals on the Underground

Hello,

I wondered as to your reasons for deleting my first ever article on Wikipedia about Animals on the Underground.

I note the category you cited as your reason but I can't figure out why, then, the page on Underground Ernie should remain. This is, IMO an identical extended use of the Harry Beck tube map. As is the Great Bear painting.

Could you advise on how the article should have been presented in order to avoid this happening again if I try to re-create it? Should I avoid images and external links?

Your help would be appreciated.

Kind regards, Nick

• The first line of Underground Ernie says "Underground Ernie is a Computer-animated children's television series produced by Joella Productions in the UK and shown by the BBC on both CBeebies and BBC Two." Notable producer, notable network... these are clear claims of importance. Animals on the Underground was about a webpage, of which there are billions... I saw nothing claiming why "Animals on the Underground" was more important than any other webpage. Now if there is some reason why "Animals on the Underground" is notable (I honestly don't know) let me know and I'll undelete the article so you can add that claim. --W.marsh 13:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. We firmly believe that Animals on the Underground is a concept which is far bigger than just a web page! I will spend some time getting a better entry prepared and substantiated which will illustrate this. Should I start a new article or can you 'undelete' the existing one so I can revise it? I'm also getting messages that I now have orphaned images as the article that they were attached to has been deleted.. Thanks again for your help - I'm learning!! --Grid24 08:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, here it is: User:Grid24/Animals on the Underground. You can move it back to the article space when ready by clicking the "move" button (up by "edit" and "history"). --W.marsh 00:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  
  I have revised the article and added loads more details which, I hope you will agree, makes it worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Grid24 09:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I will restore it as an article if you can provide some external links verifying the claim "The web site has been awarded Site of the Month in Internet Magazine, WebUser, Nuts and Microsoft Windows XP magazine." --W.marsh 18:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any online links to these awards - they appeared in the printed magazines as follows:
Internet Magazine - May 2004. Featured web site
Microsoft Windows XP Magazine - May 2004. Favourite site of the month
NUTS Magazine - Website of the Week (no date on cutting!)
Web User Magazine - 13-26 May 2004. 'Bright Spark' feature
I can scan these in and add them as images if it helps?

The Animals have also appeared many times in London's Metro newspaper and is regularly featured on blog sites around the world.

• See WP:CITE, we have templates for citing offline sources, {{cite journal}} and {{cite news}} are probably what you're looking for here. Once cited, I can move the page back to being an article. --W.marsh 15:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  
  

Updated article with citation templates as suggested. Can you have a check and re-list the article if everything is in order? --Grid24 15:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I cleaned up the article a bit so it looks a bit more standard, and have moved it back to the article namespace, it's now at Animals on the Underground. Feel free to improve further. --W.marsh 17:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV Notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of T-Rock®. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--- Jreferee t/c 15:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect? How?

Any suggestion for how to make a redirect on Dammit, Janet! stick? That was my first pass, until someone resurrected the article and erased the redirect. Kww 20:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• It might sound draconian if you've never done one, but an article WP:RFC might be what it takes here. Your argument in the AFD is pretty good, but it's really more in support of merging to a topic that does have many sources written just about it (Rocky, or the Rocky soundtrack). I think if you made that argument, people would support redirection. Deletion shouldn't be a substitution for when redirection is too hard to get to stick... it's too bad that we have a more refined process for deletion, but redirection, as in this case, often is just what's best for the encyclopedia. An article RFC would probably draw in a lot of opinions, perhaps different kinds than an AFD would. I just see it being more successful here. --W.marsh 20:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Bryant Unistructure

Hello, since you recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unistructure, I thought I'd let you know that it seems the content of the page has been reposted on Bryant Unistructure, which I've tagged with db-repost. Cheers, David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 21:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Relisting AFDs

Thanks for clearing that up, I wasn't sure. Removing them from their original logs breaks the "view log" link, which confused me for a good long while. --Coredesat 00:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PiX Bros

FYI, this was a bundled nomination with PiX Frogger and PiX Pang which you closed as delete. Those two should probably be deleted too then. I'd delete them myself but it might be better if you did since I was the nominator. Wickethewok 23:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• done --W.marsh 23:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:W.marsh/Credits

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For creating more than 175 articles(the last I counted).--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 21:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks! Vanity aside, it's also for making sure none of my oddball articles have been deleted. --W.marsh 22:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. And I'm just curious, if this isn't personal, what does your username mean?(And what does the W stand for?)--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 20:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On October 29, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rent control in New York, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Royal Artist Club

Hi W. Marsh,

I would just like to enquire as to why you have deleted a page I made regarding Royal Artist Club blogs.

I understand that there were two possible reasons for this:

1. A possible advert 2. Not notable enough

I feel that both of the above are unfounded reasons. I can assure you that I do not work for the website or it's owner - I just believe that a site/platform like Royal Artist Club is interesting enough to warrant its own page within Wikipedia just as sites like Bebo/Myspace/Youtube/SecondLife etc have. Secondly the blogs are updated by established musical acts such as Manowar, Gallows, Ed Banger Records, Peter Hook etc and it is has been created by Nokia (a very notable company). It makes me wonder why other Nokia related pages such as Lifeblog and Nseries remain.

Would it be possible for me to rewrite it in a manner which adheres more successfully to the Wikipedia rules/guidelines?

Your help is appreciated,

Thanks :)

Justin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin Steele (talk • contribs) 17:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You can try to rewrite it, sure, I'll restore a copy for you to work on, if you like. Ultimately, to be resored as an article, sources need to be cited in accordence with WP:N and WP:ORG, as mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Artist Club. --W.marsh 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there,

If you could restore a copy for me to work on that would be great thanks

--Justin Steele11:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's at User:Justin Steele/Royal Artist Club --W.marsh 14:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Justin Steele11:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 43	22 October 2007	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens, budget released	Biographies of living people grow into "status symbol"
WikiWorld comic: "George Stroumboulopoulos"	News and notes: Wikipedian Robert Braunwart dies
WikiProject Report: League of Copyeditors	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 15:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello I would like to speak about the LOTAR page

I did see that you merged my page with the KAPAP page, I do understand what you are saying but It is a direct conflict of interest with my business I do understand that I have a conflict of interest as well with writing the Lotar page but the page kept getting redirected to KAPAP and it makes it seem as though the KAPAP training center is the LOTAR center and that hurts my business I am sure that you would understand this. I have asked for help many times in tiring to figure out how to solve the problem, I do not have an issue with being linked to Krav Maga but I can be linked up to KAPAP due to COPYWRITE issues between us..Once again I have put up the info on LOTAR to be reviewed with an article for source reference. Please review it and let me know if it works to help my issue... Thank you very much

thank you RONIN6969 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronin6969 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well you can undo the redirect if you want, but when you're writing about yourself or your business, you need to be extremely careful that the only things you add are summaries of what third party sources have to say. You should not be repeating your own material or personal knowledge. --W.marsh 20:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 44	29 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled	WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Agriculture
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Come on

I'm frustrated and insulted by your commentary related to anonymous page creation. Rather that working with your fellow editors you are simply slinging insults. Your latest claim that there are "nearly-unanimous objections" is demonstrably false. Your approach is making it very difficult to move forward productively. How can I help address your concerns? I'd like to work with you because I believe that we all share the same goals.--Gmaxwell 15:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think it's appropriate to turn anonymous page creation on when all we give people is a blank box to work with... as I've explained, we basically set new users up to fail with the current system. Then wonder why there are so many complaints about deletion of bad new articles. Sending more people into the buzzsaw doesn't help... we need to dull the blades first. An article creation system that heads off people creating copyvios or vanity articles, for example, and that warns them on creating the types of articles most likely to get deleted. But there's no interest in doing that... only in opening the floodgates. So while I thought the reason I (and newpage people all over wikipedia) are frustrated was clear, perhaps this will clarify it. --W.marsh 15:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There is always interest in making improvements, but it is becoming impossible to make virtually any highly visible change around here because there is always someone who is strongly opposed. If you want to see things improve you need to focus on what we can do to improve. If you can't find the willingness to have an open mind about changes which you are unsure of how can you expect anyone else to have an open mind about changes that you think are important?

I've never been an advocate of openness for the sake of openness, I'm an advocate of testing and making informed decisions. Why does testing something worry you so much?

What are your thoughts about the improvements to Special:Newpages? How else can I help in making your life easier? --Gmaxwell 15:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not unsure of the effect of your change, though. I know exactly what the effect will be... overworked newpage patrollers will have even more work, because new users create a vast percentage of articles with serious problems. There's no chance I will even touch a new page during your experiment, and I suspect a lot of other veterans feel the same way... it's just in very poor taste to those of us out there doing this work that you're adding more for us without listening to anything we have to say.

Understanding what newpage patrol actually entails would be really helpful here. Spending some time actually dealing with these pages really gives one a lot of insight as to what's going on. I'm just not convinced you're very interested in what newpage patrollers go through to do work they feel improves the project.

Creating a new page sets up new users to fail, under the current system. Creating a decent new page, that will probably survive deletion, takes at least 3-5 minutes, even with the simplest of topics. It also requires being at least passingly familiar with quite a few concepts that are not obvious to newcomers. If someone can't spend 30 seconds to create an account, there's little chance they'll spend a lot of time figuring out how to create a decent starter article. The fact that we've weeded out a lot of these crash course article creations over the past 2 years is probably a major reason quality has improved so much... now we're undoing that?

I've explained how changing the article creation system could at least give new users a fighting chance... until there's interest in that, setting up more new users to fail, or create articles that slip through and get us awful press, that's just not a good idea. --W.marsh 15:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you're opposed even testing allowing anonymous users to create pages because it isn't a move to disallow editing by new users entirely?

Yes, new users create a lot of rubbish that needs to be cleaned up or deleted. No one disputes that. But I do not see what bearing that has on making people perform two more mouse clicks before creating a page.

Would you *please* stop claiming that the proponents of allowing or testing anonymous page creation have not spent any time cleaning up new pages. I was cleaning up new pages, as a anon in fact, a year before your account made its first edit and the same is true of many other people. Not only do I have personal, direct, experience I am very interest in what you have to say... but conversation needs to go both ways.

Would you please take a look at the Special:Newpage enhancements and provide feedback? --Gmaxwell 17:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am all for anonymous editing, but anon editting is better suited to some tasks than others. We don't let them edit the main page, most templates, or mediawiki pages... it doesn't make sense to hand over certain permissions to users who are likely to be inexperienced. Creating a newpage is something that's complex and really not a good idea for totally new users to be doing under the current system... unless they can really invest some time and effort. However, editing existing articles is a fine task for new users... it's how most of us got started after all. It's just exponentially easier to fix a typo or add a 1-sentence update than start a new article that won't get deleted.

Your experiment is just picking the wrong variable. Change how new users are guided through the article creation process, then I think an experiment in allowing anon article creation would be more than just an exercise in frustration. Improvements to Special:Newpages are welcome. However, I don't feel our only goal should only be reacting better to problems... we need to focus on why there are so many problems, which in this case, I believe is a newpage creation system that sets up new users for failure. --W.marsh 17:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with improving the new page creation instructions to users. I've supported MrZ's work to those ends. He's been very helpful, and his guidance caused me to add some features to MediaWiki to help reduce the new page review workload.

I wish that you and I could have as productive a relationship.

I see that you haven't commented at all on MrZ's new article guide. Why is that?

I agree with your position that we need to do more to improve the quality and merit of newly created articles. I do not, however, see where you have provided any substantiation for the position that anonymous page creation has any significant bearing on this subject. Can you help me understand?

I'm still looking for feedback from you for the Special:Newpage improvements. I realize that your primary concern is that new users are not well enough educated, but you've also argued that anonymous page creation will create an additional workload for page reviewers and your input on Special:Newpages would be greatly appreciated.

--Gmaxwell 17:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I do not have the technical ability to do much beyond provide suggestions... and right now I don't have time to even do that so much. All I wanted is some acknowledgment from the people in power of some of the basic concerns NP patrollers have... it's good to finally see that. Thank you. --W.marsh 17:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have time to help directly or even by reviewing improvements, why are you still making false accusations about the people who support re-enabling anonymous page creation? I've asked you several times to provide some support for your postion or to point out some material concerns that we can improve, you respond that you don't have time to be helpful. Okay, but then why do you have time to be unhelpful? --Gmaxwell 00:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well to make it crystal clear... before it's responsible to do your test, my position is that we need a professional-quality overhaul of the article creation process. Not a few hours by a few people in an ad hoc effort, but a serious study of why bad articles are created, and the most effective ways to help people avoid that, both through instruction and server-side features. The blank box is just not going to cut it in 2007... it's embarrassing that that's all we still give people. No other top 10 website has such a primitive interface for one of its most basic features. Until some serious time (and maybe even money) is put into fixing that, turning on anonymous creation is an insult to people who'll deal with the fallout (rather than study it), and dangerously upsets the balance we've struck over the past few years, where we've finally managed to somewhat get a handle on the quality of our articles.

You can and you apparently will make this change regardless of how many people object... why are you wasting your time with me if my objections can't stop this from happening? It's frustrating to me. --W.marsh 00:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Why the heck would anyone put in the effort to creat a "professional-quality overhaul" when some other "W.marsh" is just going to grandstand, refuse to provide any constructive comments, and generall try to obstruct the whole process? With some 20,000 active editors, each personally empowered to obstruct any proposal, it's bound to happen.

Right now the objectors are still in the minority, go count the names on the pump and the Wikien-l thread. This is pretty impressive since nothing has requested that people who support it actually need to comment.

A few people have been constructive and as a result some of those concerns have been addressed. Meanwhile, it appears that you won't even bother looking at any of the improvements people have been working on, for example, you complain about "the blank box", but MrZ has addressed that.

Your objects won't change anything, but thats only because you're not providing substance. You've pretty much dodged every pointed question I've made on how to improve things. Now you've provided something specific, you want "a serious study of why bad articles are created", but just below you express a complete lack of concern for people who study the behavior of users on WP. It seems pretty clear that I'm wasting my time talking to you, no matter what work people do, you're simply going to raise the bar. --Gmaxwell 00:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate what MrZ has done, but much more is needed. How am I grandstanding? Your proposal that started this whole thing was over-the-top grandstanding on the scale I've never seen on Wikipedia... presenting this as a done deal that the peons may now discuss. It set a horrible tone for anyone who wanted to oppose. So go ahead, make the change... frustrate most of those of us who work on these articles. I don't think it's worth it, considering the benefit here is a few decent articles a day at best. The amount of work we'll spend cleaning up against the new waves of bad articles could be spent writing a few decent articles a day. --W.marsh 01:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You are grandstanding by standing in opposition but refusing to provide suggestions or solid facts to back up your claims. You've spent more words pushing this false claim that everyone who supports this has never done new page patrol than you have spent helping define what I can do to help make life easier for new page patrollers.

" much more is needed" Exactly what more is needed? Waving your arms about "professional studies" doesn't help, especially when you'd almost certainly oppose the execution of any such study since you're opposed to collecting data on the impact of denying anonymous page creation.

Please be specific and constructive. You oppose. I get it. Why? Based on what evidence? What can *we* change in the short term to help? How can we execute those changes without being blockaded by someone making arguments like yours?

"the benefit here is a few decent articles a day at best" "the new waves of bad articles" What facts do you have to support these claims? I'd love to see them. I say this because I think you are wrong, but because I have no idea at how you have arrived at these conclusions. --Gmaxwell 01:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I arrived at these conclusions through 2.5 years where the majority of my time/work and 40,000 edits were cleanup work. I think I've eared the right to have an opinion. Anyway, I give up... this is just frustrating me at this point. I've explained why this is a bad idea, contrary to your claims. Please stop replying here... I have nothing more to say. --W.marsh 01:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Bierria

hello. on October 13,2007 i wrote and article about my last name which is "Bierria" on today i wanted to add more content about my surname, but discovered that it was deleted. i would really like to know why. There was no reason for my article to be deleted. My great grandfather is the person who brought the name into the United States. He had 26 children. 10 with my great grandmother, 10 with another woman, and 6 with another. Maybe one of his other kid didn't agree with my article, but i was not bias to the facts at all. please tell me why my article was deleted. you can email me at bierria@gmail in response to this letter. thanks in advance. AARON C. BIERRIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceumus (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The article seemed mostly to be an excuse to drop a mention of your name and a link to your website... see WP:N and WP:ORG I guess, if your family is notable, an article on it should mention third-party sources that have written about your family. If that can't be done, then it's probably not a suitable topic for Wikipedia, unfortunately. --W.marsh 17:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Tempest Boats

Why did you delete Tempest Boats? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Tavares (talk • contribs) 06:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, I didn't delete such an article. From the deletion logs:

• 12:36, 22 October 2007 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Tempest Boats" ‎ (CSD A7 (Corp): Article about a company that doesn't assert significance) (Restore)
• 05:57, 12 October 2007 Longhair (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Tempest Boats" ‎ (blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. (CSD G11) content was: 'Founded in 1971, Tempest Boats manufacturers family boats for leisure. In 198) (Restore)

If those explanations don't make sense to you, you'll have to talk to User:TexasAndroid and/or User:Longhair. Hope that helps. --W.marsh 13:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"Decommissioned" not resolved yet

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Consensus isn't here --NE2 20:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please help; it's going nowhere... --NE2 01:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry... I just don't have a lot of free time at the moment, and this is not an issue I know a lot about. --W.marsh 04:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you at least look at [9] and Holderca1's attempt to get out of the dictionary what's not there? --NE2 23:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Mediation and discussion restart --NE2 22:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Clinton Giving.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Clinton Giving.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 12:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Douglass Loop

I'm a local appraiser and I love the map you put in the Douglass Loop article. Any way to get a copy? I went to the census website but I have no Idea how you made it. I'd like a large file for better detail. I'm always looking for information to help me better understand my city. My email address is realestate.kennedy@gmail.com thanks, Brett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.100.68 (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean maps like this: ? I think I started with this link, click on any of the map links to start, then you can go about changing data sets and zooms (down to census tracts). It's not the easiest tool in the world to use but with an hour or two of work you can generate some nice custom maps. Maybe this link is a bit more direct, click on "geography" and "themes" to start making custom maps. I can imagine how it would be useful in your field. --W.marsh 18:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Help to review

Hi, is it possible to seek your help in reviewing a article that i have created? Thanks It is located at my sub page. please advice if possible. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dleewh (talk • contribs) 05:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Dleewh/Boon Software? It looks somewhat okay... it would still be better to cite more independent sources. Nevertheless you can probably move it back to the article namespace. --W.marsh 15:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

BRI - BioSciences Research Institute

Dear Sir,

It is very unfortunate that our Organisation details has been deleted/removed from Wikipedia. Earlier i have taken the content from our website only. URL is http://www.bri.in/AboutBRI.htm. Please guide me to sort out the copy right infringement issue. BRI is a registered as a Educational Society in indian government. Even we are ready to share the papers with wikipedia.org. kindly guide me to bring the content back to wiki.

Regards Antony Raj G Founder Director BioSciences Research Institute, Chennai, India. www.bri.in tony@bri.in

\15:45, 28 February 2007 W.marsh (Talk | contribs) deleted "BioSciences Research Institute" ‎ (This item is unquestionably a copyright infringement of http://www.bri.in/AboutBRI.htm, and no assertion of permission has been made. (CSD G12))

In this case it was really deleted more for being advertising... it was just material from your webpage, which exists to promote your company. Wikipedia articles need to be written in a neutral tone, to inform, rather than promote. I'd say you're best off just rewriting the article from scratch... and writing it based on third-party sources, rather than your own personal knowledge. It's rough to write about yourself or your own company... we generally suggest you avoid it. --W.marsh 15:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Header

I love the header on your user page. It's so true/sad. This is just a note to say don't ever give up the good fight. I do believe the encyclopedia will triumph over the bureaucracy in the end. Cheers! --JayHenry 18:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I saw this on my watch list and curiosity forced me to check it out. I'm sorry that I had never seen it on your user page, but I must agree that the forces of deletionism, which are beaten back every now and then, are unfortunately rampant. The best revenge, which is what you are already doing, is to write well-written, thoroughly-supported articles that the deletionists (even those among your admin colleagues) can't find an excuse to delete and for which reasonable people will gladly support you in the inevitable AfDs. It's a shame that the people like yourself building this encyclopedia have to be held hostage by those self-appointed arbiters, but your continuing efforts at creating, adding to and sourcing articles will overcome in the end. I, for one, thank you for your crufty comments and your persistent efforts on behalf of Wikipedia. Alansohn 18:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, Alan. Well said indeed. GlassCobra 18:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys... that was unexpected. I think Casey Abell nailed it when he said (to paraphrase) "People come to Wikipedia for what we have articles on, not what we don't have articles on". --W.marsh 19:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Have a Cookie

For your bold edits to Alaskan Hotel and Bar you definitely deserve a WikiCookie.

--Smashville^BONK! 21:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a new administrator!

Thanks! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed with 54 supports, 2 opposes and 3 neutrals. Thanks for your support, I really appreciate it. I hope to exceed expectations, If you have any advice please feel free to let me know. Thanks again!. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of foreign consulates in Oklahoma City

Thanks for the heads-up. Usually I use a tool which automatically removes backlinks, but I needed to insert custom deletion summaries this time and completely forgot about it. I'll get on those right now. east.718 at 22:48, 11/4/2007

T-Rock

Hey, I was wondering if you could provide me with the text of this deleted article. I was asked by the creator to find some sources, and I think I've found a few that would work, but I'd like to have something to start with. Thanks! GlassCobra 22:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, it's at User:GlassCobra/T-Rock --W.marsh 23:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks! GlassCobra 04:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just letting you know that T-Rock has been recreated, though I think it's a bit better this time around. However, the title of the article is actually T-Rock™, because T-Rock has been protected from re-creation. Would you mind unprotecting it and redirecting it to the article? Thanks. GlassCobra 01:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

DOne --W.marsh 13:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Marsh, I noticed you allowed re-creation of this article. To my understanding, re-creation may be allowed if it addresses the concerns for being deleted. I can't view deleted articles but does the current version of T-Rock provide more sources than the deleted version? If not, it should be deleted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 24. Thanks. Spellcast 05:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The deleted version had no sources, which was why it got deleted. --W.marsh 14:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Dreams

I saw you relisted this. It turns out the AfD notice was removed from the article a few days into the AfD ([10]). I'm not sure how much impact this had on the AfD participation, but it can't have helped. It might be useful if a few people could watch list the article to stop it from happening again (obviously I've done so myself). Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 17:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. --W.marsh 17:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV woopsie

Hello. Actually, I undeleted Camp Archbald and Camp Arrowhead (Washington), which is why the history is there. You beat me to closing the DRVs. Do you mind if I revise the DRV closing notices or shall you do it? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, go ahead and fix the wording. --W.marsh 22:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

My Article was deleted

Why does my article deleted? What's wrong with my article? How would you like it to be verified if I'm the person who wrote, published and created that particular articles? I'm doing this to dessiminate informations with the help of your website but the problem is, it was always deleted. Please give me an appropriate reply for this. Thank you.

P.S.

If it is copyrighted, I am the one whose holding the copyright because it's mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valandvicguapo (talk • contribs) 12:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Mendoza. Do you have a good reason why they got it wrong? --W.marsh 13:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 3

I'd note that those other two were both inappropriate closes, and they were by someone who participated in the discussion, and is a non-admin (there's contention to what they can and cannot close). Would you tell me why this one was closed as a keep? I (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It would make no sense to close one as a delete and the other two as keeps... anyway there seems to be no real consensus either way on this AFD. If you want me to say "no consensus" I will, I was just trying to keep the wording consistent. --W.marsh 00:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that; however do you believe the two other keeps were valid? I (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have probably said "no consensus" for all the difference it makes. If you really think they should be deleted, there's always WP:DRV. --W.marsh 00:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay then. I (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have listed it. I (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 20:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Garden house school

Hiya - you declined speedy on the above on the grounds that A7 doesn't apply to schools. Is this for a specific reason? Or merely because the policy at WP:CSD doesn't expressly mention schools? Thanks. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 22:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The items listed in WP:CSD#A7 are specific for a reason... people have tried to add stuff like "products" but failed to get consensus. Schools especially are controversial, and not covered by A7. You can use WP:PROD or WP:AFD though. --W.marsh 22:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Help to review

Hi, is it possible to seek your help in reviewing a article that i have created? Thanks It is located at my sub page. please advice if possible. thanks Dleewh 03:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

See my comment at [11] --W.marsh 03:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

ok. thanks... however, according to Jreferee, another editor, which i asked for help. He suggested i remove all the information that comes from or have links to Boon Software. please see my user talk page. sorry, i really don't want to see my article getting deleted again. hope u understand. thanks Dleewh 08:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Daniel Boey

Hello,

I am writing you in regards to a contribution I posted, that you deleted about Daniel Boey, who is a fashion Show Producer,and Radio Personality in Singapore. From what I have gathered from the deletion logs, you could not find enough information to warrant his existence on Wikipedia. He has had many articles about him from the Straits Times (Singapore), Multiple fashion magazines, television appearances etc. He is also one of Motorola's ambassadors for their project (red)campaign.

It seems the user Aricialam, who nominated this article for deletion could possibly be a competitor since both parties are in the same field.

Thank you.

Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Succisa75 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will undelete the article if you can link to the magazine/newspaper references. Alternatively, I can userfy a copy for you to work on, then you can move it back to the article namespace when you're ready. --W.marsh 13:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

In regards to the Daniel Boey listing I have references available. Is it possible to amend the original article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Succisa75 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it's now at User:Succisa75/Daniel Boey. See Help:Move for how to move it back to the article namespace when you're done adding references. --W.marsh 17:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

List of nationality transfers in football (soccer)

Thanks for undeleting List of nationality transfers in football (soccer). Could you undelete its talk page, Talk:List of nationality transfers in football (soccer), as well? It contains some discussions that are related to the prod. (As with the article, I'm reluctant to undelete it myself) Aecis^Brievenbus 02:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sure. For the record, admins can contest PRODs by restoring the article... at least, I've never seen it be controversial. But going the extra step to avoid the appearance of a COI is never a bad thing. --W.marsh 02:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My (Remember the dot)'s RfA

I never thanked you for participating in my RfA a couple of weeks ago. Thank you for your support, though unfortunately the request was closed as "no consensus". I plan to run again at a later time, and I hope you will support me again then.

Thanks again! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 45	5 November 2007	About the Signpost

Wikimedia avoids liability in French lawsuit	WikiWorld comic: "Fall Out Boy"
News and notes: Grant money, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Lists of basic topics
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 3, Issue 46	12 November 2007	About the Signpost

Unregistered page creation remains on hold so far	WikiWorld comic: "Exploding whale"
News and notes: Fundraiser, elections galore, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Missing encyclopedic articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

hi

why did you delete my theory student line theory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammed tahboub (talk • contribs) 16:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day --W.marsh 16:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

CoffeeAm.com

Looks like someone might have finally gotten that article right! I missed the sentence about them being the largest online coffee & tea company, otherwise I wouldn't have A7'd it. Sorry about making more work for you! It's probably good you took a look at it anyway, as it was A7'd yesterday and has been speedied for copyvio before. Thanks! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It's a marginal article but if the claim is true, it seems notable. --W.marsh 16:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'll order some coffee from there and find out! :-o On a sidenote, it's amazing how many articles I G11 while thinking "neat, maybe I'll check that out". Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Damn, you're fast! Thanks for deleting my user page so quickly after I requested it. Revolutionaryluddite 18:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Wave motion gun

The redirect was undone less than two hours after you redirected it per your AFD closure. I don't want to edit war and since it's apparently going to be a controversial redirect what needs to happen to protect it? Otto4711 19:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there should be at least some discussion when going against an AFD close... I've reinstated the redirect for now. --W.marsh 20:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Taneraic

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Taneraic. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 21:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Laurie Bamford

Hello! I haven't logged in for a while, and checked my watchlist. I noticed that the article Laurie Bamford that I proposed for deletion was decided as a "delete," but it appears the user re-created the page shortly after deletion. Thankfully the deletion discussion was archived.Creslyn 22:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It was an exact copy of the deleted page... so I re-deleted it. --W.marsh 22:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about that, the image was supposed to hyperlink but I messed up. I removed it as fast as I could even though I had like 3 edit conflicts. Anyways, it was not vandalism just my mistake. Rgoodermote(Talk Page) 22:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --W.marsh 22:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thought I would tell the only person who responded before it became an issue...though if you had thought that it was malicious you would have told me. Anyways have a good day mate. Rgoodermote(Talk Page) 22:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fisk page

Why was my page deleted? I feel that the page provided adequate information, and it did show the importance and/or significance of the band. There are many pages on wikipedia that are barely more than a sentence, yet they are kept on the site, so I think my page should be replaced and left alone, because it was detailed and accurate. Please describe to me what I can do to ensure that my page is not deleted in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.201.231 (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There was no claim of why the band was notable... such as national tours with other notable bands, notable band members, releases on notable labels... see WP:MUSIC for our inclusion guideline for bands/artists. If the band does meet WP:MUSIC, which unfortunately most local bands don't, I can undelete the article for you to work on it. --W.marsh 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of ScrollZ article

Since you recently deleted the article for ScrollZ due to lack of notability, do you also plan to delete BitchX or ircII? Those articles have zero citations from external sources... If not, could you please explain the difference between ScrollZ and BitchX? They are both popular ircII-based clients. --J.maurice 16:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I invite you to check out an article from a spanish magazine in 1998 about ScrollZ. It was popular even back then, almost 10 years ago. --J.maurice 16:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• You can nominate BitchX, IrcII or anything else you want for deletion at WP:AFD, if you really think they should be deleted. As for the source, it's a start... I can userfy a copy of the article for you to work on, if you like. If it looks like a decent stub article can be made from the sources, I'll undelete. --W.marsh 17:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be awesome. Please give me the chance to save the article from deletion, and I will be your best friend. Any advice on what exactly would make it notable (other than pointing me to WP:N) would also be greatly appreciated. How can I get started on this? Thank you. --J.maurice 13:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a copy for you to work on if you want: User:J.maurice/ScrollZ. Establishing notability would mean citing sources and explaining what is/was important about this program... number of users, innovations, etc. --W.marsh 13:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)