User talk:SoWhy/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Christian Bale

Could you pop the dispute tag on this article please, as it's now locked? Ta. --Ged UK (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry that I forgot, I tried to do multiple things at a time and failed miserably ;-) SoWhy 10:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No probs, i guessed it was function overload! --Ged UK (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Current RFA thread

I haven't done speedy work myself, only listened to people complaining on the admin channel and on Wikipedia about various speedy issues. I get the sense that the very high-volume admins who do speedy work (J.Delanoy, Dragonfly, etc) don't think it's important to use exactly the right rationale when deleting, although of course the decision whether to speedy-delete or not is important. They also feel there are specific high-volume times and specific issues where they're more willing to delete than for instance User:I'm Spartacus! would be happy with. I'm wondering if the current candidate was exposed to this "culture" and that was a factor in some of her decisions. Do you think it would be a good idea to have a discussion in WT:RFA about CSD issues so that you and other CSD experts could have a "panel discussion" on CSD to educate RFA people about this? (watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would consider myself one of those who do a lot of speedy work, at least on days when I have to work. The last three days (from 7-15 (UTC)) I was for long stretches of time the only one clearing CSD. But that does not mean I did it faster or sloppier. I don't think there is any amount of backlog that could ever force us to work so fast that we have to make such mistakes and there is certainly never one that forces us to do them knowingly. Admins who knowingly use incorrect reasons for speedy deletions are, you have to say it bluntly, violating deletion policy and WP:CSD. But as there are quite a lot of them, it's hard to take action against them, although there are cases when it gets heated (for example SemBubenny (talk · contribs) is at ArbCom at the moment because he ignored policy and just deleted what he thought should go).

The current candidate's problem is not the mistakes (although there are quite many in short periods of time) but their shotgun-approach to speedy deletion. No matter the exposure to aforementioned admin-types, noone should go to NPP with the approach "Tag them all, let the admins sort them out later". As I elaborated on the talk page there, this kind of behavior is certainly one of the reasons new editors are becoming frustrated and I don't blame them for it.

You are free to start a discussion on WT:RFA about that but I doubt it would be productive. This is another issue that will cause quite a lot of discussion over details and people are unlikely to change their behavior from it. But we are a project that lives from collaboration, so I don't think it's a bad idea if you tried to start such a discussion. :-) Regards SoWhy 15:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, good answer. I do consider you one of the authorities on CSD. The trick to having productive discussions is to pick things to talk about that people already want to talk about, which takes some guesswork. I think that voters want to say things that sound intelligent and are intelligent at RFAs about admin chores. I think that prospective candidates don't want to listen to how some admins do CSD work, follow that view (or their imperfect understanding of that view) for many months, and then show up at RFA to be told that they got it all wrong and they'll have to start over. Notice that J.Delanoy recently had a very strong reaction to Malleus at WT:RFA; many of the high-volume admins feel that their work is unappreciated and that RFA is somewhat out of step with how things are actually getting done. Since everybody probably wants to get their views heard already, it probably won't take a lot of effort to get them talking; it may be harder to get them to stop :) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

When I started New Page Patrolling, i found it very easy to get caught up in the rush to get articles tagged, with something, anything, that some NPPers certainly seem to do. Now i've been here a bit longer, I take my time a little more and usually patrol the back end of the list, and when i do do the front of the list, I still find that people tag for CSD wrongly. The most common mistake I see people making is ignoring an assertion of notability, even when that assertion is plainly made-up or unsourceable. Then some admins (not SoWhy!) will delete this (usually non-notable person), and the error is compounded. Certainly some admin training would be in order, but I'm not sure how that would work. I also removed CSD tags where there is an assertion of notability, and have been told of for removing them, before pointing out that that is perfectly acceptable if I'm not the author. Short version, CSD is a tangled web! --Ged UK (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I found your comments about clearing CSD almost alone over the last few days of note. I normally edit 7-12 ish and allways hit CSD at that time - it seems like a one man battle very often! Having had a few days off on a break, it's interesting you note how you've been grafting seemingly alone. It makes me realise how few admins slog at that backlog, at that time. Just a muse, but I'm almost at the point of supporting RFA's if candidates promise to work at CAT:CSD during the less active 6:00 - 14:00 hrs UTC slot!!! Sorry to have left you to the slog on your own. Pedro :  Chat  16:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry Pedro. As I said above, I think bad CSD admins are much worse for the project than a 500 item backlog. Because the latter can be cleared in time (and attack pages are listed separately and usually taken care of much faster no matter the backlog) but bitten newbies are often lost forever. SoWhy 16:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hello! When reverting my edit to MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown, you ticked the "minor edit" checkbox. Per Help:Minor edit, "a minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." (You were disputing my change, so this obviously wasn't such an instance.) Excepting cases of blatant vandalism, "reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances."

This (the removal of an entire section written in good faith) is another example of an edit that shouldn't have been labeled "minor."

Thanks! —David Levy 16:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I did? *look* Oh, you are right. I must have misclicked, sorry for that, that stupid box is too near to the save button -.-

As for the other link, I think that was a valid minor edit because I do not think removing contact data in an article would ever be something that any editor could dispute as incorrect. Regards SoWhy 16:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

re:Reverting on Template:Central America topic

Hi there, I was the one who asked for the semi-protection of the template, what happens in that this annonymous IP keeps pushing his POV into the template by constantly adding Mexico into Central America which as has being solved plenty of times before it is not, that why I and other user keep reverting his edits, but he keeps on doing them, that´s what´s causing this editwar, before this annonymous IP there were 2 other users who also tried to put Mexico into Central America, we talked to them and they understood it was incorrect and we never got into any problem with them, but this IP just doesn´t understand and wants to keep pushing his ways, he says that there´s is no discussion and we´ve told him that that´s because we personally talked to the previous users in their talkpages and that he´s welcome to check them to see what came out of those talks, and doesn´t seem to care, and honestly we are getting tired of dealing with a person who doesn´t even show his face and keeps editing annonymously. --Supaman89 (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I know you were, I declined it. And I do not care (as I said to the IP, see above), why you revert-war the IP. I care that you do it and I warned you to stop it and get a clear consensus on how this template should look like. It has nothing to do with what is right or wrong (see WP:TRUTH). If the IP does not want to discuss, fine, but you need to get some uninvolved third-party editors to discuss the issue and you need to achieve a clear consensus. THEN those who go against that consensus can be reverted, not before. Regards SoWhy 18:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your RFA

Hey SoWhy - thanks for the comment - I appreciate you talking to me directly. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed in how the RfA was going, but it happens and the next one will probably succeed. However, I see the actual process of becoming an admin as quite temporary compared the larger span of our years of work on Wikipedia. A more important issue is that if/when I do become an admin, you and I are probably going to be working together and collaborating on patrols, vandalism, etc. I think it's unlikely that we'll ever have such similar personal interpretations of each of the deletion criteria that we work identically. In fact, often we may completely disagree over whether pages should be included. I think this is useful and healthy, and it's good to hear your view on my tagging (though I wish I'd known before RfA, but that's how it goes). And while obviously I don't agree 100% with your view on my edits, I'm definitely going to be much slower and more careful while patrolling as a result of this RfA, no matter which way it goes. Unfortunately, that means a longer backlog for pages to be patrolled, but other people will step in and it shouldn't be a big deal. Anyway, I welcome criticism both now and in the future if you find a problem in my edits. I know the backlog for admins like yourself can get really horrible on CSD, which is a big part of the reason I wanted to apply for admin in the first place, so I'm looking forward to the time where we can work together to protect the content here. Happy editing to you. FlyingToaster 00:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the backlog gets horrible in part because half of the pages there are mistagged. It's a vicious circle we have there. And I understand your view of the criteria but I don't think it's correct because, and that is what I said to Keegan on your RFA as well, admins do not decide whether something is worthy of inclusion. A7 for example is just about whether it may possibly be worthy of inclusion, not if they are worthy. When you gain adminship, you have to remember that your personal views of what is worthy of inclusion and what not are completely irrelevant to your work handling pages where there is doubt (there is an ArbCom case at the moment because one admin decided to delete pages he deemed unencyclopedic outside policy). So carefulness is to be advised in such situations and I am glad you are willing to be more careful. After all, just cutting away spammy text and making a stub out of a potential G11 for example does not take up more time than tagging it. Have a nice day :-) SoWhy 11:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff

Thank you, thank you, thank you for semi-protecting the bernard_madoff page!! I tried to put in a request a week ago and it was turned down. I was going crazy just cleaning up after all the anonymous IP vandals. I have a feeling though its going to need to be replaced soon though. Thanks again!! Magemirlen (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

G12

Where in your opinion is the line between {{copyvio}} and {{db-copyvio}}? See Faruk yerli; the entire page (if it's still there when you look) was presumably copied from the url given in the db-copyvio warning; but it's just one short sentence. For two sentences, I would delete it, but there must be some point where it's just not enough for a quick delete. (Watchlisting). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well G12 is for "blatant copyvio", i.e. cases in which everything was just copy+pasted into Wikipedia. But it does not matter, how much or how little that is. If the whole article is copyvio, it's not less so if it consists only of one sentence. But in cases like this one I'd say it's quite easy to just rewrite the copyvio. You should attempt to cut the article down to a stub rather than deleting it if it is much copyvio and to rewrite it in cases like this one. Regards SoWhy 22:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but there's a potential problem with that approach; if someone finds that we rewrite their article for them when they upload copyrighted material, but we don't rewrite it if they don't, doesn't that give them an incentive to do a copyvio, to force our help? And, copyright laws of the U.S. and other countries make it easier for legal damages to be awarded if "we" (whoever "we" is) don't take down copyrighted material as soon as we become aware of it; rewriting a page rather than blanking or deleting it would give enough time for the material to spread through mirror sites and spiders. My preference would be to delete the material immediately, and encourage the csd-taggers that I talk with to use a talk page message that makes it clear that we didn't delete the material because we wanted to, we did it because we had to, to comply with laws, and they're welcome to rewrite the material and post it, as long as it complies with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Today is CSD day, I have another question ... the tagger said, no need to put a notice on the uploader's talk page, because the uploader made one edit to the article after the db-copyvio tag went on the article, so they must have seen it. I'm thinking it would be good for people seeing the user's talk page or talk page history to see that that user has been warned repeatedly for copyvio, if that's true ... thoughts?

You are right of course, our duty is to get rid of copyvio as fast as possible, that's why I said, it does not matter if it's only one sentence. My point was that in cases like the article in your first post, it does not take the reviewing admin more time to rewrite that sentence than to delete the article, hence there is no danger of it spreading to mirror sites. And if the article consists large portions of copyvio, deleting the text and leaving a stub may be as quick as deleting the whole thing (and it would be much faster if the tagger had done that instead of tagging). Point is, we, as admins, should try (so goes my philosophy) to keep information rather than deleting it, if possible. Of course we don't have to (so noone can force us to do it by posting copyvio) and I do delete a fair share of G12s myself, but once in a while I salvage a stub from the copyvio in the time it would have taken me to hit delete and enter a reason.

As for the notices, I think you are right. Not for the history of copyvios but mostly because {{sd-copyvio}} gives the creator a lot of information they don't get from the tag itself. After all, we have to assume good faith that they don't want to violate copyright but simply don't know. Regards SoWhy 10:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection requests

Hi there. Can you take a look at the following articles? It has been a while since you protected them.

• Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park)
• Rodney MacDonald
• Four Horsemen (Supreme Court)
• Anatoliy Golitsyn
• Tite Kubo
• Michael Brandon (porn star)

Cheers! I hope you have a nice day. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I unprotected all but one of them. I left the protection on Tite Kubo because there is still discussion going on and apparently still no consensus. Regards SoWhy 18:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I see only one edit in the last four days to the talk page, and none for six days before that. I am unsure if that is active enough, but your call, I guess. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't expect a very fast discussion. But the last discussion entries point out that there still is no consensus, so I'd like to wait for another few days to see if there is no further reaction. Regards SoWhy 09:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Article deletion

Please don't delete my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beast Jr1 (talk • contribs)

The article in question, The Blue Panthers, does not indicate that it would meet our notability guidelines and if you cannot provide a reason why it should be considered notable, it will be deleted again. Sorry but Wikipedia is not for your group of friends. Regards SoWhy 21:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

CSD Question

Hi
Having deleted a couple articles yesterday, I have a question right away. I didn't pay close enough attention to how old the articles were I deleted. When reviewing it, I think that deleting WormWood (band) was OK since from all I can read, I highly doubt that the topic can be brought past A7. The only other one that was deleted very quickly by me was Luke Richards as A1 (could have been three other criteria as well), but I had a look at the editor's other contributions which quenched any doubts.
How do you handle CSD tagged articles that are still very very new, only minutes old? In particular with A1, A3, and A7?
Cheers, Amalthea 12:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, the deletion of Luke Richards was perfectly fine. :) Also, generally speaking, there's nothing wrong with deleting A1, A3 and A7 straight away if the criterion in question applies blatantly, as in the case mentioned above. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 12:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Aitias in this case. Usually such articles are not likely to get past A1 if the creator posted them like that. Usually I'd advise a bit of patience, especially with A1 and A3s because (mostly with A3s) it is likely that the creator is still working on it and just does not use the preview button (like most newbies and anons). Remove the speedy, watchlist it, if it's still the same after an hour or so, you can still delete it. After all, having it for an hour does not hurt us but might allow the creator time to add context/content. As for the A7, I had reviewed this already when stalking your first admin actions (I am evil ) and it was perfectly fine. Regards SoWhy 12:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, no one did stalk my first admin action . — Aitias // discussion 12:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, we did. We just did not tell you because we were rolling on the floor laughing SoWhy 13:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I knew that they were right per the criteria, and as I said more time wouldn't have changed anything with them, but was wondering how others were handling those cases. Bookmarking and removing the tag with a message like "Let's give the author some time, I will keep an eye on it and handle it in an hour" seems like a good solution for some such cases.
Cheers, Amalthea 13:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor review

Hello there! I've just submitted myself for editor review. I'd be grateful if you could spare a few moments to have a look and comment, as I'd certainly value your opinion. Wikipedia:Editor review/Ged UK. Cheers! --Ged UK (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. If you need any other help, feel free to ask. Regards SoWhy 18:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, those are very helpful comments. I knew that more wikipedia namespace edits would 'look good', but more to the point improve my understanding of some of the machinations behind the scenes. I've never quite understood the dislike of high numbers of script assisted edits personally; certainly I use them a lot but generally just because it helps make sure i get templates right: AfD is a nightmare for starting without twinkle! If i do decide to go that way (and I probably will) do you think admin coaching would be a good idea before and RfA? --Ged UK (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia namespace edits have nothing to do with "looking good", you need to make your name seen and you need to show you have a WP:CLUE in discussions. People need to see your name at RFA and think "Why is he not an admin yet?" (see Amalthea for example who encompasses this quite well).

As for the script-editing, yeah, it's a divisive thing. Although AFD can be done without Twinkle - I for one use the AFD closer, the AFD nominator and the AFD !voter script and noone notices I use them (well the closer maybe). But you are right, without scripts it's a bit hard to do ;-) But I meant thinks like AWB, edits that just add a newline for example look like artificial editcount increasing without contributing and might get frowned upon.

As for admin coaching, I personally would not suggest it. I never did it and I passed RFA fine (well, I had my fair share of drama...) with only four months of real contributing before. Coaching imho just prepares you for RFA, not for adminship itself and is thus worthless in the long run. But every user needs to know whether they think it's a good idea for themselves. It's just a question about the way you want to go and how you like to learn and that's something noone can answer for you. But I will try to answer any other questions you have in regard of adminship and stuff. Regards SoWhy 18:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the 'looking good' phrase was rather flippant! I totally understand where you are coming from; as i said it can only improve my understanding of how things work, and help people get a feel for me beyond normal editing. I've only just started using AWB, and that was just to correct some spelling errors, links to disambig or redirect pages and the like. And the bulk of the editing i do is on a mac, so I can't use AWB on that anyway. I certainly have no intention of using it regularly, just whenever I see a multiplely repeated error that needs to be fixed and AWB is the easiest way to do it.

Thanks for the reply, sorry for the delay in replying, I lost it in amongst your busy talk page!--Ged UK (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand how you meant it, but you need to be careful, otherwise someone will dig out this thread at your RFA and oppose you because you just edited those pages to look good. I've seen it happen ;-)

Let me know how you decided on the coaching thing. If you have questions regarding the admin thing, feel free to ask me. Regards SoWhy 22:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to worry about thinking about admin coaching for a little while, i'm a little way from that point yet. I'll let you know if i have any questions though :)

I'm trying to make more of an effort on AfDs, but what other wikipedia namespace places are good to get involved with? I did contribute to ANI a few times, but never felt quite at home there as i wasn't an admin. --Ged UK (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

WT:RFA is always a fun place to contribute to, with many perennial discussions. Or WT:CSD. Or any other talk for an area you are interested in. You can also contribute on the admin noticeboards without being an admin. Many new users come there for help and you can point them in the right direction if their problems do not require administrative assistance. (sorry for the late reply, I overlooked that you replied to it). Regards SoWhy 07:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this! I've started contributing to RfAs now, and will certainly try to get involved at the CSD talk page, as that's something that i would be interested in. I realise that ANI is for everyone, but it never seems particularly welcoming (and that's pretty unusual for WP in general I think). I guess this is inevitable as there's a degree of pissed off people there arguing their case to some extent, which is seldom an ingredient of a happy place!

My involvement in the RfA page has made me realise that I think i'm quite close to being able to get some good support if I decide to go for it, and will help me work out what i need to improve on.

Don't worry about the late reply, it's a failing of WP talk pages which gets lots of edits. RSS seems the only way to cope with an oft changing page! --Ged UK (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot employ RSS because I use the page from different PCs and the feeds can't know that. ;-)

Yeah, ANI is a drama mill but it's a good place to learn if you want to be an admin. If you can keep calm at ANI, you are pretty much calm enough for the mop. ;-) Regards SoWhy 08:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point! I'll dip my toe back into the ANI water then. Hopefully you'll start seeing me around such places more often. Cheers! --Ged UK (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Hello, SoWhy. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<. Ikip (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation but I fear I got to decline it. I am busy enough reviewing speedy deletion requests that I lack the time rewriting those articles. Regards SoWhy 09:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand why you are probably busy, you seem to do so much good work for wikipedia. I deeply appreciate all your many efforts. Ikip (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Randolph Scott non-protection

I'm curious why the Randolph Scott article was refused semi-protection on the basis of "not enough recent activity" when the edits in question number more than 20 in the past three days, more than the number of near-identical edits that earned the Cary Grant article semi-protection in the same matter. The antagonistic editor is making improper POV changes to both articles on exactly the same subject (whether Grant and Scott were romantically involved), yet the Grant article gets protection but the Scott does not. I'm interested in understanding how things work, not questioning your right to protect or refuse to protect. Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not reviewed the other article and I would not have protected it. Protection policy is quite clear that it should be preferred to deal with the disruptive editor first before protecting a page. In this example, the disruptive editor seems to use the same IP the last days, which can easily be dealt with with warnings and/or blocking instead. Also, two reverts in 2 days do not look like disruption that cannot be dealt with by reverting. Regards SoWhy 22:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I shall continue to revert, then. Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar Problem

Umm hey. Someone gave me an admin's Barnstar but I'm not an admin so what do I do? Abce2 (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Abce2

Tell them you feel honored but they should give you one that fits. ;-) SoWhy 07:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

TBTL

You mentioned that you changed the protection level on the TBTL website because multiple users removed allegedy "controversial cited statements" about the show. The statements weren't controversial, per se--they were an attempt to denigrate the host (I think it's clear that the changes made by notabilitypatrol weren't neutral). Further, most/many of the citations linked to a site called blatherwatch, which has been the setting for particularly hateful, obsessive, and often threatening disparagement of the show's host.

This sort of commentary has extended to the TBTL website, where a particular individual attempts to disrupt the website's infrastructure and participation through the comments section. The changes this user made to the TBTL Wikipedia entry were particularly concerning because they were slanderous. In that assertion I'm confident.

Citations for the changed content/original content pre-vandalism can be obtained. But, please understand, many originate from particular episodes of the show, as opposed to text-based content that can be easily linked to. If you have any suggestions for how to cite references originating from a radio program (other than linking to the program's website) please advise. --MikFantastik (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2009 (EST)

This is (a) incorrect, (b) deceitful and (c) indicates an attempt at manipulation of wikipedia.

(1) The statements weren't controversial, per se--they were an attempt to denigrate the host (I think it's clear that the changes made by notabilitypatrol weren't neutral). Any cited statement I provided that could even remotely be viewed as critical I conveniently grouped into a section called "controversies." This is standard with other radio person entries (see: Don Imus, Rush Limbaugh, etc. etc.) and is not considered attempts to "denigrate" it is considered attempts to provide "editorial balance." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan club compendium.

(2) Further, most/many of the citations linked to a site called blatherwatch, which has been the setting for particularly hateful, obsessive, and often threatening disparagement of the show's host. Correction - 1 of 22 citations was a link to a site called blatherwatch, which is a regionally acknowledged, reporting blog operated by parties that - to my knowledge - have not been engaged in these edits. The operator of said site has been quoted in mainstream media (newspapers, etc.) in the geographic area where the topic in question is based and is, himself, a former journalist based on his provided biography there. I can provide direct link to evidence supporting the above on request.

(3)Citations for the changed content/original content pre-vandalism can be obtained. But, please understand, many originate from particular episodes of the show, as opposed to text-based content that can be easily linked to. Vandalism = the removal of 22 of 23 citations and reversion to a 3 page article with 1 first-party source citation, such as you did. I would welcome complimentary commentary in this article - I think it's as necessary to provide editorial balance just as much as the crtical commentary I added and you vandalized/deleted - if properly cited. I do not welcome the deletion of notability and ad tags without discussion (vandalism); I do not welcome the deletion of verifiable citations from newspapers and other mainstream media sources without discussion.

(4) We're aware you are a member of this radio show's fan club based on your user profile, edit history and the fan club profile user buttons placed in you user page by your other personas, such as Lew19 (that latter being a user who may, in fact, actually be the topic of this article - which has not been disclosed - who has been extolling members of his fan club to "patrol" wikipedia and remove unflattering statements about him). It is disingenuous and offensive to make borderline libelous accusations here to advance some project or activity proposed by said fan club to "clean up" the wikipedia entry about it. Wikipedia is an encylcopedic source that exists to provide objective information about notable sources. It is not a fan club vehicle. It is, also, not acceptable to stalk users who have made edits with whom you disagree as you have been doing to me.

Please note - the above user has also directed, what I can only construe to be, threats of violence against me by spamming my userpage with the phone number for, what appeared to be, a 1-800 telephone number that appears to provide tips on how to commit suicide and encouraging that I "call" it. Under WP's No Personal Attacks policy, I deleted these entries but they exist in the logs if you'd like to review.

Notabilitypatrol (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no knowledge on the matter at hand, thus I will not try to solve any content disputes. My protection stems from the fact that content was removed multiple times by newly registered accounts without providing an reason for doing so. If there are disputes on the content as it looks like, I strongly suggest both parties to pursue dispute resolution. Regards SoWhy 07:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Rodrigo Ávila

SoWhy, this is not a "legitimate content dispute." You can follow the source he provides, or you can also read User_talk:Someguy1221#Rodrigo_Avila. The source is legitimate, but the content is the anon's personal and extremely negative interpretation of a quote. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that my Spanish is not so good so I have to rely on a Google translation but as far as I can tell the source does say that the subject has a certain affiliation with that man. I am not saying the wording used by the IP was good (it was biased of course) but it can be rewritten neutrally instead of reverted as vandalism. You have to assume good faith that the IP just made a mistake in writing, not in their intentions. Regards SoWhy 08:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if you have to rely on Google-translate, it should be pretty easy to tell that the source is an interview with Avila himself, so any claims of a "controversy" are entirely the IPs original research. But if you do insist that this is a good-faith content dispute, you can't really miss the fact that this IP rapidly changes and refuses to participate in any manner of discussion (except for the one question he asked me). So it is actually impossible for this to be settled by any manner short of forcing him to use the talk page by protecting the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources like interviews are perfectly fine to report on things the subject itself has said or admitted. As I said, the wording might be non-neutral but it might be worth to mention. If the IP breaks other rules like 3RR, it can be dealt with individually (by reporting at WP:ANEW for example) without having to protect the article. Regards SoWhy 08:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:All-Star 5000

I just came across this user page up for speedy. It seems that you declined the speedy tagging of User:Blakegripling ph due to lacking of rationale but he added back the tag. Perhaps you would like to review it. Cheers. --Efe (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops. --Efe (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I'm on speedy-duty today. But thanks for telling me :-) SoWhy 09:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome. --Efe (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagging

Ah ok thanks, i didn't know what to do for a place so i selected that, but i will know what to do in future now, thanks Macromonkey (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Oh and if you reply to people, you should usually place your reply in a new section. Regards SoWhy 12:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Cookie

Gee, thanks. It's not my first time. I probably owe you a bigger debt of thanks for saving me from being the only guy who digs up your history of bad CSD tagging and ruins your RFA. WilyD 14:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't ruin RFAs, we point out problems. Others !voting like us "ruin" a RFA ;-) And you do a very good job in speedy deletion, it is much appreciated :-) SoWhy 14:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

G12 of Japanese military strategies in 1942

I linked a couple of examples of the possible copyright violations regarding Japanese military strategies in 1942 on its talk page. If you find that the article may not be in violation please advise on a suggested course of action for the article as I am looking to cleanup one of the oldest articles marked for cleanup. Perhaps a {{non-free}} related tag? Barkeep ^{Chat | $} 14:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can confirm different sections as copyright violations, remove those sections. I tried a couple of sentences from the article in Google Book search and none matched, so the whole article is not a copyvio and cannot be G12ed. Of course what you can confirm as copyvio has to be removed. Good luck with cleaning this up! SoWhy 14:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As you seem currently online...

...could you please have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Calling_me_a_nazi? Thank you! :) — Aitias // discussion 14:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Was already taken care of seicer (talk · contribs). Some people are really unfriendly... SoWhy 14:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks anyway. :) — Aitias // discussion 15:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Information Systems Coordinator

You declined speedy on this article, but if you read it a bit more, I think you'll see that it is nonesense. The author has apparently posted an internal document - including phone numbers - from a US military site onto wikipedia by mistake. It is an internal policy document, and hence it definitely needs to be removed ASAP!

--  Chzz  ►  13:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NONSENSE is clear and this is not nonsense. I see no indication for "US military site" (since when does the military have "customers"?) It is clearly no mistaken creation as the creator is aware of what they posted (see Talk: Information Systems Coordinator) so there is no policy-based reason for deletion. Regards SoWhy 13:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It has a link to https://www.nmci-isf.com. It's documentation for their system for logging support requests WITHIN THEIR ORGANISATION! It has internal fax numbers..."call the NMCI Help Desk at 866-843-6624 to have a trouble ticket opened". It has the internal organisations document ID's. I can't believe this one! Really - it's an INTERNAL document and should never be on WP! --  Chzz  ►  13:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have a look at the talk page for the article (ie where the hangon was replied to). Talk:Information_Systems_Coordinator I would have though that there was a solid argument for this being a test page. Essentially this person is using wikipedia mainspace as a holding page until he gets into work. --Ged UK (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I read that talk page as "I am working on it and will expand when I get to work", not "I need a place to store this until I do". But I will request another opinion on this. Regards SoWhy 13:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

He's using WP as a temporary storage to start editing a document for his work. With the military. S'funny, really. Think I might start a new article called my shopping list. --  Chzz  ►  14:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That is an assumption not covered by neither the title nor the talk page. But it was deleted by another admin now (although without asking me), so I will not campaign to reinstate it. Regards SoWhy 14:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying sooner, but the issue seems moot. It's a G12 copyvio[1] so any other debate is secondary to that. Pedro :  Chat  20:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SoWhy. You have new messages at MBK004's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-MBK₀₀₄ 16:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Park Lane (band)

so why did u delete Park Lane (band)?????!!! And how do I get the damn code back that took me a long time to make.......????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djspinalot14 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it fell under criterion A7 for speedy deletion: It had no indication what so ever that the band might be notable within our notability guidelines for musicians. I can provide you with a copy of the article in your userspace if you like. Regards SoWhy 20:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

how do I get a copy of the article you deleted entitled Park Lane (band)

--djspinalot14 (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

/ ....i do want a copy of the article...where will you send it?

--djspinalot14 (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please allow me some time to respond, okay? ;-)

I placed a copy in your userspace at User:Djspinalot14/Park Lane (band).

PS: There is no need to create new sections for each reply, just use "[edit]" to reply in this section. Regards SoWhy 20:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Verulam School

Could you reconsider your decision to semi protect Verulam School. I think I have kept the vandalism fairly well under control. There will always be vandalism on school pages.

Is the policy still to avoid protecting or semi-protecting just because an article will get a lot of interest? Dolive21 (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is usual to protect pages that get a lot of interest except the FA on the main page (see Wikipedia:PROTECT#Semi-protection: "Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption – for example, due to media attention – when blocking individual users is not a feasible option"). In this case the article is a mess and needs cleanup but many IP edits seem to vandalize it given the current event that happened. I think protection is for the benefit of the article because we can expect more childish vandalism in this case. Regards SoWhy 22:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Message reply

Very well, will do. Thank you for reminding me! Renaissancee (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Very Urgent

Dear Administrator SoWhy

Good-Evening

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amisha_Patel" is Semi Protected.

According to us, Wikipedia is trusted information source,for these cause Gossip Inputs not allowed in any comportment. My question is removing Gossip Based Information is Vandalism??

Every users have rights to edit misconduct information. So please release the semi protected option from above page.Thanks for your cooperation. we are waiting for your positive response.

We are not against of anything is Good.

The Official Approving Team —Preceding unsigned comment added by Official Approving Team (talk • contribs) 13:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is bad, if done the way like in this article. Although we have a strict policy on living-persons, it does not mean that negative content that is verifiable to reliable sources is not permitted, if the content is deemed notable enough for inclusion. If there is disagreement, editors are expected to resolve the problem by using the talk page and dispute resolution, not by removing content even if others revert it. I see no reason to lift a protection that was instated to stop such disruption. Regards SoWhy 16:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:UnTrooper

Can't disagree with your reasoning here; what I would have done, but a second pair of eyes is useful. Let's hope his workmates (?) don't find his cached password. --Rodhullandemu 20:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's wait and see what happens. If we are lucky, he said the truth and will contribute in a positive way. If not, we can block him again. Thanks for the input again. Regards SoWhy 20:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

SSNP

Hi, The SSNP is not national-socialist. It being based on the Nazi Party is the opinion of a few scholars, and the SSNP was founded before the Nazi Party came to prominence. Please unprotect the article so that the information could be properly edited. Oumf1234 (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I will not unprotect an article that another admin protected (unless it's needed by policy) - Please ask the protecting admin for unprotection.

On a side note, I'm German and I can tell you that the NSDAP was prominent already in 1932. But I have no knowledge of this SSNP party, so I will not make any content edits. I just replaced a highly POV looking word (in all caps) with the neutral representation. If you disagree with the content, the talk page (Talk:Syrian Social Nationalist Party) is where you should raise it. Regards SoWhy 14:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Zoo Tycoon 2

I don't think you understand the problem here. The Zoo Tycoon 2 article is being CONTINUALLY being edited...it's been edited FOUR times in the space of a week. And the person who is doing the disruptive edits CAN'T be blocked, because it is a free-flowing IP, which changes every day.

Someone is deliberately vandalising that article and there is nothing that can be done about it except to protect it. CBFan (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I do understand the problem, but I am bound by policy like we all are, in this case WP:PROTECT. IPs can be blocked, you just have to warn and report them to WP:AIV. Protection policy is clear that blocks should be a preferred method because protection is the option that limits our general credo ("anyone can edit") the most. In this case the disruption is limited to a few cases in almost two weeks, nothing that can't be handled by blocks instead. Regards SoWhy 14:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but my problem is how on earth are we supposed to block somebody who can simply come on the next day and begin vandalising again because his IP has changed? Because that's what this guy is doing, and that's why I want that page protected. I know it's the same person, but what's to say that the "admins" will realise this? And it's not "a few cases every two weeks", its "numerous times in the space of a week". CBFan (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I understand your frustration but I still think it's not enough to warrant protection. I have left the request open though so that another admin can give their opinion on it. Regards SoWhy 13:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK, but I would still like an answer from them as to how to block the unblockable. CBFan (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Characters in Resident Evil 4

You have recently locked the article. There is no dispute going on here. The last person to make an edit was a sock puppet and was supposed to have been blocked per: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kevin7557/Archive. Belasted (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I could find any log entry for this IP, neither directly nor autoblocked and the last edit by the IP was after the supposed Sockpuppeter was blocked by PeterSymonds (talk · contribs). I have now blocked the IP that apparently was not caught in the autoblock and unprotected the article. Regards SoWhy 14:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already mentioned this on the Request for Protection page, but Characters in Resident Evil 4 should be semi-protected, because the puppeteer has made yet another sock puppet, Special:Contributions/86.145.112.112. They seem to have the ability to make all the puppets they want and show no signs of stopping. Belasted (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* Some people are stubborn... Done. Regards SoWhy 18:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

86.145.112.112 is not limiting theirself to that article, also editing Syphon Filter: Logan's Shadow and Syphon Filter: Dark Mirror. Geoff B (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot autotagging proposal on NPP

Hi there. We have a discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#Automatic_patrolling_after_a_tag_is_added about the viability of setting up a bot that will mark as patrolled any unpatrolled page that has a deletion tag on it. I thought of this after finding, da after day, articles that had been tagged for deletion (usually CSD, but sometimes AfD or PROD) but not marked as patrolled. Because many editors forget to patrol the page before tagging, this means that some patrolled pages get more than one person looking at it, unnecessarily, in my view. As one of the most respected admins on anything related to CSD (and I don't mean that to sound quite as suck-upy as it does!), I'd be grateful for your comments! Cheers. --GedUK  20:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

G1

While I'm here; how would you feel if there were no G1? G1 seems to be used mostly in a bitey way. For instance, this got a G1 tag: Beast Mode: "Beast mode is a common term used in the video game world, meaning, "To completley obliterate the competition". This phrase was coined by a young man, [name withheld]. Legend has it, that said it after scoring 12 touchdowns in under a minute in Madden 09." The tagger couldn't think of a better category than "nonsense", but do we need to insult the editor with "incoherent" and "gibberish"? Wouldn't it be more tactful to use G2, A1, or A7 for things that are currently tagged G1? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

G1 serves its purpose, it's just a limited purpose. The problem is that people are using it as a carte blanche for everything they think has to be deleted but does not meet another criterion and that is what we should try to stop. If you notice an user doing so, leave them a friendly notice (maybe with {{uw-csd}}) that they need to be more careful. But there are cases when it applies, for example an article with "eggs shoes wind great honey women". That cannot be tagged as A1 or G2 because it does not really fall under them because it is clearly not only a test page (may be disputed) and it does not even try to be informing (thus "no context" is not really correct). It's incoherent and gibberish and thus a G1. But that's seldom the case. Another example is this deleted page. One could argue it's G3 but that would be more BITEy than G1 because it implies bad faith. So I'd say G1 serves its purpose in few cases (I have 6 G1's in my last 1000(!) deletions) and can't be equally replaced with G2, A1 or A7 but one needs to be careful when applying it and educate taggers that it's not a fall-back criterion if others don't fit. Regards SoWhy 10:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Smart AdServer

You declined the A7 in January; it was just tagged as spam and I speedied it, but I'd be willing to be talked out of it. Two things swayed me: a Google search gave me page after page of links created by the company, and I just don't want Wikipedia to be part of their marketing mix; and every paragraph talked about how they're in the business of using the internet to promote their clients. I decided that I believed that this was indeed their purpose. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I advise against such deletions in general. Although I am fairly tolerant, other admins might find it wheel-warring if you ignore their decision to decline speedy deletion; because usually (as do I) they have checked if the article falls under another criterion and decided not to tag or delete it as such. It encourages users to tag the article until some admin deletes it, even if it was declined before (i.e. forum shopping).

In this case it was not a G11, so your deletion was incorrect I am afraid to say. The way I see it, and I think that's what "blatant" implies, G11 can only be applied if there is no article left after you deleted all the spammy content. Here it could have been cut down to a non-spam stub instead, which would allow us to retain the information without aiding any marketing campaign. It can still be deleted via AFD if notability is non-existent but seeing that there are quite a few Google News hits[2] I would say it's better to err on the safe side. I'd suggest you do just that in this case. Regards SoWhy 10:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've always checked before, this was a mistake; I pulled up the article, got something to eat, and then forgot that I hadn't checked the history yet. I also did a Google news search, and every English result was a press release, so I've prodded the article. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know but I don't speak French, so I don't know if those French sources are something else than press releases. Let's give the article the benefit of doubt, the prod won't hurt anyone :-) SoWhy 17:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point. On a completely different topic ... I asked about User:Sowhy at WP:BN because I wanted to learn something about how to treat usernames that differ only in capitalization, but as a bonus of asking the question, one 'crat said that it's fine for you to usurp that username as a redirect to your account if you like :) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That's very nice of you. I never considered that someone else already uses that name, but you are correct. I think I'll ask for usurpation. Regards SoWhy 19:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help. Yet another topic you might be interested in: WT:Rfa#Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NNBot II. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

declined speedy Sitecore

Can you please explain why you declined the A7 speedy delete for the corp. advertisement article Sitecore? When did making a product equal notability for a company? 16x9 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Because having a potentially notable product indicates some notability for the company. Also, the article is mostly about the product and not about the company so A7 would not be correct. Also, I see no harm keeping the article that existed for a year for another 5 days while a PROD or AFD runs. Regards SoWhy 12:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 02:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotabhaya_Rajapaksa

I noticed that you protected the article. I would be very gratefull if you could consider protecting it after reverting it prior to the following edit by a disruptive SPA [3] which violates WP:BLP. As this article is regarding the Sri Lankan Defence secretary who is also the presidents brother, and the article is going to be protected till the 6th of march and getting a prominent exposure till then I would be gratefull if you could consider protecting after reverting to the version prior to the above edit, to prevent people getting the wrong impression about him. Kerr avon (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to do that. The section in question is not overly negative and is sourced to a verifiable source (The Boston Globe). Please explain to me why the fact that the article mentions that the subject was served with such a charge is a violation of WP:BLP. Regards SoWhy 18:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

For one, the heading "US Allegations of Genocide Against Tamil Minorities" suggests the allegations were made by the US government, not an individual. Also per WP:BLP the views of a tiny minority are not included in a BLP. That's why, for example, every lawsuit filed against President Bush in every other country isn't mentioned in the article about him.

In any case, the SPA's (it's probably one person) that were repeatedly adding the material to the article have been indef blocked, so I don't think the need exists anymore for article protection.[4][5][6] (They were a very friendly bunch too.) --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 20:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, although I think that information can be included in some way (being reliably sourced and all), I unprotected the article now as there is no possible discussion to be held if one side of the disputing parties is blocked. Regards SoWhy 22:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

According to User:CMBJ and User:SoWhy's explanations[7][8][9], I have reverted User:Kerr avon's revert.Sobberrs (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is possibly another sock puppet for the banned SPA's.Kerr avon (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Banned by whom? Come to the point. We can discuss here if we want to change the title. Washington Times on Gotabhabaya Rajapakse and US Senate Hearing on Sri Lanka Government Genocide *SHOCKING* will give more idea about him. If Bruce Fein is in the pay list of LTTE, why he was contacted by Senator Robert Casey's office (D. Pa.), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia? Sobberrs (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This topic is discussed at [10] as I dont want to pollute your talk page.Kerr avon (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I fear I lack the time to make any content contributions in this case and I don't want to as the previously involved admin. Regards SoWhy 17:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Brian Dawkins

Can you lower the protection level on Brian Dawkins it is now official--Yankees10 19:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that is likely to be accepted by all parties? SoWhy 19:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[11]--Yankees10 19:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The Denver Broncos are reporting it on their website http://blog.denverbroncos.com/denverbroncos/2009/02/28/free-agency-day-2/ NFL.com is reporting it http://blogs.nfl.com/2009/02/28/dawkins-signs-five-year-deal-with-broncos/ Philly.com is reporting http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/Updating_Dawk_Andrews.html and CSNPhilly.com http://csnphilly.com/pages/landing_homepage?blockID=42307&feedID=729 --Flyguy33 (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Regards SoWhy 19:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you protect it again, but so that only IPs and new users cant edit, theres a buch of vandalism--Yankees10 21:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not at home yesterday evening. I see Mfield (talk · contribs) has done it. Regards SoWhy 16:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Your WP:USURP request

I've made some changes to the pure semantics of your request with regard to the said "current" username and the "target"; please take a look to see if I was correct in my assumptions. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that for me. :-) SoWhy 16:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Template protection

Hello, you semi-protected Template:Tracklist back in December, following up on a respective request of mine on WP:RFP. To my embarrassment, I did not include a vital sub-template (Template:Tracklist/Track) in that request and even though that part is not that obvious to the untrained eye, it just got vandalized, along with its doc page. Could I ask you to rectify my oversight by also giving semi-protection to the sub-template (and either template's doc page, if that's not unusual procedure). – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 16:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I protected the Track-subtemplate as it's highly visible like the base template. I don't think the doc page needs to be protected, even if it's vandalized once in a time, that will not have an impact on thousands of articles. Regards SoWhy 17:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 00:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Test pages

I can't shake the feeling that this clarification was done for my benefit. ;) Cheers, Amalthea 11:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. Although I will be very sad if you deleted test pages in userspace . I changed that because I saw some taggings in userspace and declined them. Apparently people never read that part of G2, although it is quite logical that test pages in userspace should not be deleted against the user's will - after all, that's what userspace is for^^ SoWhy 11:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Man ... now I'm sad cause I made you sad!
Well, your change was tied in with the same thing then, cause I did delete some of those pages MZMcBride tagged, when they were a pure copy&paste of some Wikipedia article, were the user's only edits ever, and where the user appeared to have left a while ago. I only realized afterwards, when I approached him about his weird tags, that this was being actively discussed at WT:UP#Non-contributors. Amalthea 12:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't fret. MZMcBride has a very let's say "weird" interpretation of CSD rules, i.e. "What I think should be deleted, is speedy deletable". As you are a new admin, nobody will be really annoyed (except maybe those people you deleted the pages of) if you make mistakes like that, they happen (and G2's finesse is relatively unknown anyway). As long as you stopped once you realized, it should be fine. Just remember that MZM is one of those users where the speedy tags are most likely incorrect within the strict CSD rules as he himself admits. Regards SoWhy 12:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Complex case of sockpuppetry

The person that you blocked and that is behind IP 69.158.144.231 is highly probable that he is the same person that consistently has been evading blocks in the past, using multiple accounts or just editing anonimously. Please take a look at my user page for a detailed list of evidence, especially the articles he edits, because this is a complex case (he has been doing this for almost 2 years and a half). AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 22:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked them for edit-warring after being warned to stop. I suggest you open a WP:SPI-case if you have further evidence of sock-puppetry. Regards SoWhy 15:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. The editor involved in this complex case of sockpuppetry has returned. He is from Toronto, Canada. Please check the edit pattern of this new IP [12] which is consistent with that of Corticopia and the IP you just recently banned. He has been disrupting articles related with Mexico and Central America, him being the ONLY person trying to impose his POV. When he is gone (he sometimes is gone for periods of time) NO ONE objects the content of those articles. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 07:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to help you but I am really unexperienced of procedure regarding sock-puppetry and thus I advise you to open a SPI case instead, which would allow identified and confirmed socks to be blocked quickly. Regards SoWhy 07:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

FC Portlandia

What notable group did they split from? This rec-league team (i.e. you and your buddies form a group and go to the local city's parks & recreation department and sign up for a league) split from the Timbers Army Football Club in 2008, as the article explains. They linked Timbers Army (a fan club for the Portland Timbers), but they did not split from that, as the article indicates. The Timbers Army Football Club is not notable, and they split from that. This isn't even a semi-pro team. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

One could make the claim that the The Timbers Army Football Club is notable because of Timbers Army and thus a split from it is indirectly notable as well. Yes, it's quite borderline, but I prefer to err on the safe side. It hurts noone to keep it for five days anyway :-) SoWhy 21:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It took me ten minutes to put up the AFD, do more research to ensure a rec league team had zero coverage, and inform the relevant projects, plus leave the note here. That's ten minutes I could be using to improve an article, so yes it does "hurt" as this is the entire purpose of CSD (and this doesn't count anymore time that might need to be spent at the AFD or for the people who then comment, nor the time to be spent by the closing admin). Not to mention that you are assuming that because the Timbers Football Club is notable because the Timbers Army is notable, thus this might be notable has some logic problems. First, just because Timbers Army exists does not mean it is notable, in fact the current state of the article would fail AFD as lacking independent, RS, with significant coverage. Secondly, there is a big difference between a split, and simply people from one group also forming another. If IBM splits off their server business, the resulting entity has a good claim at notability. If some of the employees from IBM form a soccer team, I fail to see notability. Lastly, notability is not inherited. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:CSD: A7 is not about notability. It does not matter if the subject is notable, only if there is any possibility whatsoever that it might be significant enough for inclusion. And as I explained above, it might be possible from the connection that is claimed in the article (all that is needed for A7). Noone forces you to AFD the article nor is anyone forced to !vote in that AFD. The time you spent on that is spent because you chose to. You could have used the time to work on an article. If you choose to use the time to AFD (instead of using WP:PROD for example), you should not blame me for that. I didn't force you to do that by declining the speedy, did I? Regards SoWhy 22:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A7: "any credible claim of significance or importance" (emphasis added). I guess we disagree on credible. To you, if a group of people from Portland get together and do anything, well since Portland is notable, then there might be some shot at significance or importance. Good luck with that. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Review of an article.

A user just deleted a lot of content from a newly created article however it does not violate wikipedia's guidelines and its relevent to the article. Can you please review this as well as the discussion page of My Adventure With Green Day --UnTrooper (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The removal was correct. You copy+pasted it from GreenDay.net's homepage, thus violating their copyright. Per WP:COPYVIO we cannot allow such copy+pastes, unless you can prove that it's GFDL compatible (and I see no indication for that). But it was correct anyway. As you were told, we never ever copy+paste content from such pages that is entirely artistic in its nature. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and you should provide a short plot synopsis (2-3 sentences) and link to the long text instead. Regards SoWhy 21:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

request for text of deleted page

You suggested that if I posted a request here, you might be able to get me the former text from a now deleted page. The deletion log read:

· 20:27, 23 February 2009 Wizardman (Talk | contribs) deleted "Al Steiner" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Steiner)

Thanks so much, and please let me know if you need further information to pull this rabbit out of your hat. I have a copy of the blurb from Google, for example.

--Kayti23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayti23 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

First off, I advise against posting your email anywhere here. Then, I userfied the article in your user space at User:Kayti23/Al Steiner. Be advised that you should not try to restore it at Al Steiner, it will be deleted again. Regards SoWhy 21:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Found, appreciated, and thanks also for all newbie tips. May other recipients of your assistance be similarly grateful. 216.254.33.131 (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Kayti23

Victoria Falls

OK. Generally, what would be considered sufficient vandalism to warrant SP? Babakathy (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Multiple vandalism edits a day from different editors (IPs/users). Generally speaking, pages are protected if it's not feasible to warn and block the editors individually. With your example, 2 vandalism edits in 3 days, it's more than possible to warn and block the IP instead. Regards SoWhy 12:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Clear enough! Babakathy (talk) 12:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Contributions Review

Hi there SoWhy. I have had tremendous respect for your work at CAT:CSD, so I wondered if you could possibly give me a review on my work at Special:NewPages. I had a similar review a while back. Balloonman told me that my work wasn't exactly the best, and I should probably shape up at NPP. I just wanted to ask you how you think I am doing right now. I patrol nearly everything I review, so my patrol log is probably something useful to check out if you are willing to do so. (Note: The high live/deleted ratio for patrolled articles is from working at the end of the backlog). Also, if you wish, here are my last 5000 contributions.

I would appreciate very much if you could do this for me. I feel that finding out what I'm doing wrong now is better than doing so six months from now, or twelve, or never. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll focus on speedy stuff here, which is my specialty so to speak. Overall, it's pretty good, just a few tips:

• When using G6, like here and here, you should always specify why this deletion should be considered maintenance, either by using special tags like {{db-move}} or by specifying the reason in the edit summary or on the talk page.
• Checking your deleted contribs, I focused mainly on A7 where I found only one mistake in January:

“ Kofi Siriboe (born March 2, 1994, Los Angeles, California) is an American child actor best known for his role as Javy Hall in the 2008 biopic The Longshots (...) ”

Deleting this as A7 was a mistake by the deleting admin. Being a supporting actor in a notable movie should be enough to satisfy the low threshold set by A7.

• Some other taggings were borderline, like
  • a userpage with "???????????(...)????" which you tagged G1 (I don't think we need to delete userpages for nonsense reasons, let people have such pages if they like)
  • a page which consisted mostly of Chinese characters, also tagged G1. I don't know if you checked Google translate before tagging but WP:PN specifically excludes foreign language content as the reason for G1. I admit the content was probably nonsense after checking Google translate myself but I think you should rather tag it {{notenglish}} instead, list it and let someone who can read it tag it afterwards.
  • Although included in WP:PN, I suggest you tag pages where the content is "dskfjaskldghaskl;djgklashlgkmsklbvhlkanboahsklgasjkoghklasfjlknblhaslgkjaskl" as G2 rather than G1, which is more BITEy.

But apart from that, random checks of both deleted and undeleted speedies show no further problems. I think you have taken I'm Balloonman!'s () critique to heart and have improved your understanding of A7. I see no real problems with your speedy work since the aforementioned review by I'm Balloonman! Regards SoWhy 09:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

For Kofi Siriboe, I seem to have prodded it, but the deleting administrator must have ignored it. The Chinese character one I had looked at via a query to an Asian friend of mine who doesn't use wiki; he said it was nonsense. Perhaps I could have been clearer though. I thank you for the review though. It was very useful, and I am glad to see that you feel that I have improved. Thanks once again, 19:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Madslashers

I've tried to sort through the 3 primary articles regarding speedy deletion: WP:DPR, WP:DEL, and WP:GTD. I was confused as to how an article, in this case, a stub can be created without any verifiable information or sources. I believe the article lacks any context to the 75th Ranger Regiment or any organization associated with it. I would think that based on that logic, the article would meet some criteria for deletion. Your thoughts? -Signaleer (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A1 is more specific than that. It's just to be used if an article does not offer any context whatsoever to understand what the article is about. It's clear here, it's about a part of a regiment. I suggest you merge that content to 75th Ranger Regiment (United States) as suggested and then turn the article into a redirect to that article. Regards SoWhy 23:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You also declined it under A7, for dubious reasons. You state there MAY be notability, yet the article makes no such claim. If you google the term, you'll find the only mentions of it, in context of the platoon, is this article and discussions about it. The article has ZERO sources. The merge discussion has been going on since December and nothing has happened. There is a time for caution, but this is so obvious that I'm having difficulty seeing why you are hesitant. In any case, I'll simply have to do a regular AfD. An article about an unofficial nickname of a group of 40 people isn't encyclopedic and the past discussions on it at the Military History project show I'm certainly not alone in that belief. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say the article says "this is notable". I said it might be. Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial cases of deletion. The fact that there are people opposing deletion in the merge discussion is indication for possible controversy. Yes, it will probably be deleted using WP:PROD or WP:AFD but I disagree that it's so completely without any possible notability that it is an A7 deletion. And if the article existed for over 2 years, another 5 days will not hurt us. Regards SoWhy 00:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please read what I wrote. I said "You state there MAY be notability" I even made the word MAY in all caps. So I don't know why you would start your response with a defense against something I didn't say in the first place. And I don't read that speedy deletes are required to be totally free of any possible controversy. WP:SD says "These criteria are worded narrowly, so that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does and does not meet a given criterion." In any case, you seem intend on opposing any speedy delete so it'll just have to go the longer route. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no difference to my response. Yes, I said "might", not "is". Trust me, I know about speedy deletion, I am one of those admins who clear CAT:SD and I have a ratio of approx. 3500 deletions to 1000 declines. But as you correctly point out, "(...) in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does and does not meet a given criterion." So you are either implying that Estéban (talk · contribs), who opposes deletion, is not a "reasonable editor" or there is no agreement that this article meets a criterion for speedy deletion. I am inclined to assume the latter (as WP:AGF does not let me assume the former here), so I think speedy deletion is not the correct way to go here. Regards SoWhy 01:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• A single editor wouldn't really qualify as an exception to "most" now would it? Where did Esteban discuss this? And where did Esteban ever make a case for the notability? Where has anyone made a case for notability? I've watched 2 seperate discussions on the topic of deleting the article. There are 2 prevailing opinions; delete or merge, and the deletes are the majority. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Most does not refer to "most editors" but to "most cases". This is not one of those cases, simple as that. Esteban voiced his opposition to deletion on Talk:75th Ranger Regiment (United States)#Madslashers merge. He does not have to make a case for notability nor does anyone else have to. A7 does not need any proof of notability, not even claims. It's deliberately using a much lower standard than that.

I think you are confusing deletion discussions and speedy deletion: The latter is without any consensus finding at all, just an admin deciding if it fits WP:CSD. I decided, as the reviewing admin, that it doesn't (and even if it did, I could still decline it within that policy). Discussions on a talk page though are not a valid reason to delete an article, no matter how many people are supporting it. If you think the article should be deleted, you can use WP:PROD or WP:AFD which allow editors who might be interested to rescue the article to do so. Regards SoWhy 01:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't say discussions from talk pages were the reason. YOU brought up something from a talk page and I expanded on that. I used the word notability rather than type out "fails to make any credible claim of significance or importance". There is no credible claim of any actual significance. Anyway, this is pointless. You've made up your mind and nothing I say will change it. I'm finished here. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I just mentioned the talk page to indicate that there is someone disagreeing with you and I think it's less harmful to use WP:PROD or WP:AFD than to delete the article now when this user might want to defend it. It's a simple calculation actually: Harm of deleting the article now? User(s) might have been interested to save it and are now not able to. Harm of deleting the article in 5 days time allowing everyone who has it watchlisted or checks CAT:PROD / WP:AFD to work on it? None at all. So I decided, as I was not 100% certain it fits A7, to give it the benefit of doubt and decline the former. I know that you think that there is no "credible claim of any actual significance", after all, you nominated it for deletion just because of that. But you might agree with me that someone else may disagree on your view (as indicated by aforementioned talk page comment). Regards SoWhy 01:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)