User talk:SoWhy/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

PBW

why did you delate PBW page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach wikipoff (talk • contribs) 21:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to the page you complained about the last time, the reply can be found at User talk:SoWhy/Archive 11#potomac backyard wrestling. Regards SoWhy 21:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

• From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
• Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
• News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

San Jose del Monte City

Hi. Can you protect the article San Jose del Monte City? Because there are many vandalism in that page. Only semi-protected. My english is not good. Thanks! --Secaundis • (myTalk) • (myContribs) 07:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the amount is not enough to warrant semi-protection at the moment. Regards SoWhy 08:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Because many IP's are vandalizing the page. they change the mayor of the city. --Secaundis • (myTalk) • (myContribs) 08:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw that, but twice in 2 days is not many. Twice in an hour is many. SoWhy 08:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If that 2 times an hour will happen, i will talk to you. Thanks. --Secaundis • (myTalk) • (myContribs) 08:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

International Presidential Scholars Council

Mind salting this for a bit? 2 creations today, 1 creation two days ago; the people involved don't seem to be getting the message, so maybe preventing its recreation for a bit might slow them down. Ironholds (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Already done . Regards SoWhy 09:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

TheOnlineTicketShop

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I disagree with your decision to decline this speedy. I think it was you who gave me a tip that I should use A7 if there was any non-promotional material to be salvaged. I found none, but of course, what's "promotional" and what's "factual" is often a matter of opinion. Anyway, I hope you don't see my latest edits as a case of WP:POINT, because they weren't at all intended as such. decltype (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course you do, if you tagged it. But your tagging was correct in the face of the page itself, it was advertising. I just thought there is something to salvage and that Wikipedia is better of having a stub about a company with some dozen Google News hits than to have all of it deleted. Kudos for improving the article afterwards, nice job. And don't worry, your behaviour here is anything but POINTy. As far as I can see, it's quite civil and exemplatory. Keep it up SoWhy 13:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, the same to you. decltype (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

SureThing

Hi. In regard to the speedy deletion of SureThing page, I never meant that it was qualified for software rule. The rule that I mentioned and referred to, was A7 web content and not software. This rule says, if a page is about a person, an organization, and/or a web page. and then it says it does not apply to softwares. Thanks. Parvazbato59 (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I know but the article clearly states that "SureThing is a line of label printing software", so I do not understand, why you think this is web content. Regards SoWhy 16:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That is right, but right after that, it gives the name of the company. It clearly seems that this article is for advertisment. Clearly not notable. The reference that is given is also, for advertisment. Even if this page is not deleted based on speedy deletion, do you agree that a notability sticker should be added to the page as it does not meet the requirment for a notable article? The best Parvazbato59 (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, articles about products always give the name of the company, that's normal. For example Mozilla Firefox does so and it is not advertisement, is it? If you feel that the product is not notable, you can either nominate it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or tag it with {{notability}} as you suggest so that others can try to establish notability. Regards SoWhy 16:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess notability is the issue here as you mentioned. Thanks alot. Parvazbato59 (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I did nominate it, however, I do not know why it looks the way it does here. For some reason I did not list it correctly and it appears on top of the page. I appreciate if you could help me on that. Thanks. Parvazbato59 (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This does not look right. There is something wrong with it. I don't know what I have done wrong. Thanks Parvazbato59 (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Another user fixed. Thanks anyway! Best Parvazbato59 (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You can automate that process by using the AFD helper script. Just add the following line to your monobook.js file:

importScript('User:Jnothman/afd_helper/script.js');

With it, you can simply choose "nominate AFD" from the sidebar and it does all the necessary steps for you then. Regards SoWhy 21:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I learned alot from you today! I can't thank you enough. Appreciated! Parvazbato59 (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, don't hesitate to ask if you need further help. We all have to learn that Wikipedia stuff someday after all . Regards SoWhy 22:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps reconsider

Hi, per the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial disappearance decision to relist, perhaps you can reconsider since the nub of the matter was the non-existence of the term in the literature, not the actual content that followed thereon. No need to reply - whatever you think is best is fine. Eusebeus (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Most, if not all, arguments were regarding the original research and the POV of the text, not about the term itself. Some delete !voters even expressed that they think the term and concept itself to be notable. Seeing that almost no discussion went into the question whether the (newly cut down) stub should be kept, I think some further discussion on that matter cannot hurt. Regards SoWhy 16:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete tag removed on Triplets Paradox

Hi, I noticed that you (rightfully) removed the speedy delete tag to Triplets Paradox, so in order to get rid of this nonsense, I have taken another approach with this and this. I think this is better indeed. Thanks and cheers, DVdm (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Followup - The user just agreed on the talk page that the article can be deleted. Is it ok if I insert a delete tag like {{delete|it is erroneous, unsourced, original research, and the author agreed to delete on the talk page}} ? Or is there another more appropriate way to do this? Thanks, DVdm (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If they agreed, there is no need for such a custom tag, it fits G7 then. Regards SoWhy 21:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Policy on quoting users/admins

Thank you for your swift decision on Marketcetera, of which I am the original author. I was going to stamp the talk page as settled and quote the time and admin (yourself) that settled it. Is this good practice? Also, incidentally, is there a general policy for quoting another user or referencing his/her actions in this kind of way? Thanks. Wikiphile1603 (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Be careful with such "stampings". My decline only concerns a very narrow scope of things. I just declined that it matches any criteria for speedy deletion, especially the very narrow criterion G11 (which is misapplied often, see WP:10CSD). It did not judge about any of the points you raised on the talk page, especially not the usefulness, the accuracy, the factual correctness or similar. The article can still be deleted via WP:PROD or WP:AFD for fialing any of those reasons or other reasons not yet mentioned. So there is no real point in quoting my decision on the talk page, it's not really a content decision and not a good argument to avoid further deletion attempts.

Generally speaking there is no rules for quoting, just the usual community policies, i.e. WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and common sense. You can quote or reference any other user's actions like you would quote someone in real life. You should just be careful not to quote out of context and, if possible, provide a diff of the page where the quote in context can be found. Regards SoWhy 22:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for a swift and detailed answer! It makes perfect sense and is useful to know. I will just leave it as it is. Thank you for your time. Wikiphile1603 (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say "it's my job" but noone pays me for it yet, so I'll leave it at "you're welcome". If you need further help, don't hesitate to ask. Regards SoWhy 22:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

SUDESH SIVARASU

Would you agree with me that this is substantially the same as Sudesh sivarasu, recently deleted at AFD? The scholar hits were specifically discussed there... If so, I think some deleting and salting may be in order. --Dweller (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you are correct of course. I've deleted it now. I don't think SALTing is needed just now, we'd have to SALT every variation of lower- and upper-case letters and that would be pointless. Can still be SALTed if it gets really recreated with exactly that name. Regards SoWhy 10:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup, fine. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Nassim Haramein deletion

Hi soWhy

Thank you for your response to my remarks regarding this subject and I have noted the procedural guidelines you brought to my attention. I will follow these in future. (I hope I'm making the comment in the right place and correctly signed this time).

I will pursue the lines you suggest regarding the Haramein article.

Thanks again for the reply.

Indigopete (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Happy editing :-) SoWhy 11:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Thanks

He thanks for reverting the edit of De Lorenzo's Tomato Pies by Exeunt. I always assume good faith but I have reason to believe he has some kind of personal bias against these articles. I'm not sure if it was bad faith but if you look at other articles he edited after he stalked me such as 53rd and 6th, Joe's Shanghai (rated as best dumpling in New York City I know this one is not as notable as the others), and Serendipity III you can see that he blatantly removed massive amounts of cited material I added when trying to push these articles up to WP Standards. The most shocking is this reversion here. He actually reverted my edit which had a large amount of citations to a vandalized version. He might be trying to remove information in order to add speedy tags. It's all to early to tell just giving you a heads up. Valoem ^talk 14:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why Are You Changing the contents of Sathya Sai Baba

Dear,Please don't indulge in a mission to malign Sai Baba. May I ask you of which branch of Christianity you belong to. Court has not proved any thing against him. Who are you to malign him? You guys are bent on destroying other cultures. You did the same to Muslims time and again. I hope,God punishes you for your wrong-doings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitzorba (talk • contribs) 06:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you write that message to anyone that edited that article? You might have noticed that I only protected it against such vandalism, i.e. removal of content. My personal religious stance (atheist btw) has nothing to do with it because I have no interest in the contents of this article. I do want to remind you however that Wikipedia is not about truth but about verifiability so any information of negative nature that was reported in reliable sources can be legitimately included in an article if relevant. Wikipedia articles only recount what other sources are reporting on a subject, so you would have to take your complaints to the BBC or the other sources in the article, not me.

On a side note, I have to warn you not to try and rewrite other people's comments like you did here. This is behavior that will lead in a block sooner or later and thus will not serve you. Nor are "I hope,God punishes you"-comments a likely incentive if you tried that with other editors - some might even take offense and view it as a personal attack. Regards SoWhy 09:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I was here to write a note about another article (see below) but cannot help but totally agree and laud your action here. The User:Amitzorba comments are beyond pale. --Louisprandtl (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Problems with Better choice parking, Airparks and Holiday extras articles

You said to "just come back here and ask", so here's another conundrum: These three articles are all written to promote businesses of "Holiday Extras Holdings", and they all have similar problems:

• Claims made without WP:RS, such as: "UK market leader for airport parking", "750,000 passengers a year", "has won a string of awards", etc. In some cases "advertorials" and online classified ads are being used as sources.
• Material that fails WP:NOT, presented in a biased, peacock style
• Spam links directly to the company's online booking sites, like this.

The author of the Better choice parking article (Jonclarke84 (talk · contribs)) has deleted the {{Primarysources}}, {{advert}} and {{prod}} three times today, having only very slightly improved the article. I don't want fall foul of WP:3RR by restoring the tags, so I've put warnings on the talk pages instead. Am I going about this the right way? What should I do next, and when? - Pointillist (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that the user has not been warned, you should leave them a {{welcome}}-template and maybe a {{subst:uw-tdel1}} warning. The articles themselves are not G11 and should fail A7 as well, so they should be kept for now (barring mistakes by other admins). So you can try to talk to the editor using aforementioned templates and see if they can be persuaded to accept that they made a mistake removing those templates. Also, you can try to improve them yourself, by using Google News or similar to find sources to establish notability. If you reach the conclusion that this is not possible, you can list them together at WP:AFD, i.e. if you can be sure there is no notability that can be verified. Regards SoWhy 16:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't properly considered the importance of timely warnings in the overall process, so that advice was very useful, thanks. Having left the warning 48 hours ago (and improved one of the articles a bit) I'm reapplying the PRODs today. I've tried to find sources for notability, but unfortunately newspapers don't seem to be very interested in writing about airport car park companies. - Pointillist (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Be careful with the PRODs. You should not add them back if someone removed them. Even the creator is allowed to remove them rightfully (to cite from policy: "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article for any reason, do not put it back (...)"). You should rather use WP:AFD and list all three of them in a single AFD (see the instructions on how to do that). Regards SoWhy 19:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks yet again (sigh)—I hadn't thought of that, either (I was treating PROD as a less aggressive action than AFD). Actually simultaneous AFD on all three wouldn't be right: the two subsidiaries fail WP's company SNGs but AFAIK the only issues with the parent (Holiday extras) are {{peacock}} and {{Importance}} (the group seems to have c. 1,000 staff and c. £50m turnover, so there's notability somewhere). I can't find anything on Google/Google News, but it's hard to be sure because apparently all the companies sell each other's brands and the parent operates a separately branded comparison shopping site (http://www.compare-airport-parking.co.uk) for finding cheap quotes (mainly from their brands and affiliates). Perhaps the Holiday extras marketing people are under pressure—this can't be a good time for travel-related businesses whose main overhead is people—but I have no personal skin in this game. If they can show notability I'll happily move on. - Pointillist (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Anyway, there's still a PROD on Airparks so I'll see whether that triggers any improvement. There's no hurry! - Pointillist (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Google News : Mohit Shah

I saw you declined the Speedy Deletion Tags on the article about Mohit Shah [[1]] and referred to Google News [[2]]. Are you referring to this News Article [3]? This News article refers to one Mohit Shah who was the former Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court in India. The article under consideration is about Mohit Shah who is a sophomore at GWU per External Link #4[4] in the article [[5]]. I was wondering whether I'm correct in my assumption here [[6]]. Thanks a lot in advance. --Louisprandtl (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I as referring to sources like this one which explicitly mentions a Mohit Shah who is CEO for a company called NEXTGen, which is very likely the same person the article is about. It's a reliable source which covers the subject, thus indicating that the subject might meet the guidelines for inclusion. Regards SoWhy 10:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: You might want to read Help:Links and Help:Diff to correctly use internal links and diffs when trying to prove a point (for example my decline was [7]). Regards SoWhy 10:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the article that you referred to. I have now seen the article and I'll have to re-edit my note on the AFD now. Also lots of thanks for pointing the way to use diffs links. Although I've been using Wiki as a reference for a long time and established this account in '06, I've been dormant before and not really conversant with Wikipedia edits. But I'm learning to pick up as I get little more involved in the editorial process than before. With folks like you helping out and giving pointers, this wouldn't be too difficult. Thanks a lot, sincerely --Louisprandtl (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I'm always happy to help, so feel free to ask if you have other questions. Regards SoWhy 16:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"No Reference" Tag!

Hello again! I have another question:) What is the tag for "no reference", for adding it to articles that have no reference? I know the once for improving reference but not this one. Is there a code that I can add to my monobook to make the use of these warning and reference tags easier? Best Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

{{unreferenced}} would be the tag you are looking for. User:Macy/FastButtons or User:S/tags are scripts that allow easier adding of such tags. Regards SoWhy 17:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate your help. I will ask you more in future. Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Btw, you can consider Wikipedia:Friendly, a more sophisticated script for this and other tasks, as well. Regards SoWhy 17:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: RFPP request

Hmm. It doesn't look like blatant vandalism to me, but rather a content dispute. I'll be away for a bit, so feel free to deny/accept the request. –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 22:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

DB-Move on The Bug Sessions

Well, the reason I used DB-Move was... for a page move. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

But you need to use it as {{db-move|WHAT TO MOVE HERE}}, otherwise the deleting admin cannot evaluate if the request makes sense as cleanup or not. And honestly, I do not see a reason to do so because the EPs are not entitled "The Bug Sessions" but "Bug Sessions" and as such that would be the correct name for the article. If you dispute this, which is your right, I'd say you need to discuss it first because I do not think it's uncontroversial to rename this article. After all, at least IllaZilla (talk · contribs) is probably disputing the correctness of this request as they have moved it to the current location in the first place not 15 days ago. Regards SoWhy 10:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

CloseXfD.js

v1.0a7 is out. I added in the Close link on the daily pages for FfD and TfD along with a Close link on the top link of an individual AfD page. I'm still thinking about your other suggestion and the other missing features that I need to add. Can you see if I broke anything? I don't think I did, but you never know. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Had a look, seems to work fine. Thanks for that, nice work :-)

As for the other suggestion, I don't think there is need for that. I realized that there is a "delete" link that prefills the deletion reason field for TFD and FFD. There is none at MFD and RFD though. But rather than my quite complicated suggestion, I think it would be easier if the script would just add a "delete" link with the same mechanism next to the "Close" link. That should be easier, it just needs the section name at RFD, which should be determinable by script. Or so I think. At MFD, it's even easier because it uses a subpage system like AFD. Regards SoWhy 20:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

v1.0a8 is out now. I stumbled upon the daily pages for RfD while RC patrolling, so I added support for that, too. Glad that I didn't break anything. I still want to add in shortcuts for results. One of these days... -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

RPP?

I saw that you declined my protection request for my userpage because "Pages are not protected pre-emptively", and i understand that. But can you please tell me why my request was declined when i've seen multiple userpages that have been indefinitely semi-protected just because the user requested it, and that have never been vandalized or edited by another user? --Frehley^{Space Ace} 07:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Some admins are, unfortunately, less strict with following policy. WP:PROTECT clearly states that they can only be protected "if there is evidence of vandalism or disruption", not without that. If admins decide to ignore it, I cannot do much against it. Unfortunately for you, I do not like to ignore such things without a very good reason to do so. So I think you'd have to ask those admins you have seen protecting user pages without traces of disruption why they were doing it. Regards SoWhy 10:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. --Frehley^{Space Ace} 12:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem at Menudo (band)

IP user is putting that blog source back into the article, I don't want to get caught up with WP:3RR. Not sure what should be done, I'll try requesting page protection. Momusufan (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's always the same IP for weeks, so I left them a WP:3RR warning. Use WP:ANEW if they continue. Regards SoWhy 17:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

IP made a legal threat over my placing of a whois template on his page, see here. Momusufan (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I decided to expedite the process and reported the IP to AIV, based on 3RR violations and the legal threat. Momusufan (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You should never use AIV for 3RR violations. In this case, I'd rather have suggest WP:ANI as the correct venue as it's neither clear-cut vandalism nor is AIV for legal threats. But I am partly involved now, so I will see who deals with the AIV report and how. Regards SoWhy 17:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I made the report at ANI, it's right Here. Momusufan (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Head's up...someone posing as you

Just so you know...using Huggle, I reverted one edit on the Menudo article that used a personal blog as a source, and the anonymous user (66.229.250.178) whose edit I reverted is now pretending to be you and gave me a poorly-forged 3RR warning on my talk page (here) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. They gave me the same warning actually, it's just a poor copy+paste of the warning I gave them. Just ignore it, it should be dealt with shortly, either via WP:AIV or WP:ANEW. I just don't want to do it myself as I made content edits to that article. Regards SoWhy 17:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

John Huong

Why did you delete the John Huong article? I had a look through the various reasons you wrote out, and I still don't know. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, sorry. I accidently used the incorrect deletion reason on that one and there is no way to fix that for me. I deleted it under criterion G10 because it consisted entirely of negative unsourced BLP. Regards SoWhy 17:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked

User:Jayron32 blocked him for the legal threat, Glad thats over. Momusufan (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The system works :-D Let's hope they understand the message and don't return as socks. SoWhy 18:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears the IP withdrew the legal threat, under conditions from the admin:

"Legal threat withdrawn. However, if you make disruptive edits, edit war or remove the IP template from this page again you will be swiftly reblocked. If you don't want other editors to see your IP, log on with a user account."

I hope he learns his lesson but I doubt it. Momusufan (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I made a part 2 to the section at ANI, he is asking another user for clarification on the edits he made. The problem is that he labeled the blog links as real newspapers (Globe) and (New York Daily News) respectively. That misleads someone reading the article thinking they will be linked to either of those sites when in reality they are going to a blog. Momusufan (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

WrestleMania XXV

Thank you for protecting this page. Could you maybe extend it by about 3 or 4 hours though? The current protection will expire at 8PM ET, which is 1 hour into the event. The PPV articles usually get heavy vandalism during the event, the event will end about 11PM ET (which I think is 03:00 UTC). TJ Spyke 18:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I just had no idea about when that even takes place. I added 12 hours to the protection time. Regards SoWhy 19:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Pikachu protection

A handful of edits in the past two days from vandalism-only accounts that were immediately blocked does not seem to be enough justification for a month semi-protection. Are you sure it's necessary? It seems like enough people are watching the article that any vandalism gets reverted fairly quickly. GlassCobra 22:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that there were that many vandalism edits and no constructive IP edits, I think protection was needed. I took the length from the previous protections. But if you disagree, I'm fine with it. You seem to have a better knowledge of the article, so I am happy to unprotect it at your request. Regards SoWhy 22:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd only been watching it for a few days, and it didn't seem that out of control. Perhaps a slightly shorter protection time might be more apt. I'll think it over, I suppose. No worries. GlassCobra 22:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed protection. On reflection, I think you are correct. I seem to have misread the time of the vandalism edits. Regards SoWhy 22:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yorba Linda bicycle path

Firstly, it meets the criteria for speedy deletion because the article consists of just two external links. Secondly, the previous AfD was closed by User:Tavix so the template would have been removed anyway. I was the original nominator of that AfD. JamesBurns (talk)

No, it does not. Even an infobox is content. The AFD is still open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yorba Linda bicycle path, the previous AFD was closed as "unbundle and relist", not as delete, so the current AFD is consensus from the previous AFD and as such should not be overruled. Lastly, DGG (talk · contribs) !voted "keep" on that AFD, so it is not an uncontroversial deletion. And please do never remove AFD templates in such cases, place the speedy on top of them instead. Regards SoWhy 09:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like a second opinion on your speedy delete ruling. JamesBurns (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. As with anything I do, I may have been wrong. Feel free to ask any admin (preferably one who does CSD work of course) to review the deletion. Regards SoWhy 10:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wojciech hoody

Hello again. G11? I must admit that I didn't see that one coming :) Would you mind giving an explanation?

Thanks for your time. decltype (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Mainly because of the last sentence which effectively consisted of "buy them!". Regards SoWhy 10:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't remember that. Is there any way you could provide me with the article text, or would that be problematic? decltype (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence was "Wojciech hoody's can be bought at Wellesbourne Market for very cheap.", i.e. advertising the intended shop to buy them. I could provide you with the full text but I don't think it's needed (although you can have it if you want). I chose G11 as it did not fit G3 as good as one might think because it sounded more like a fan/hate description of an actual product. Regards SoWhy 17:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, so the text is not needed. Thanks again. decltype (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi SoWhy, I've just deleted Template:User CVU4-en at the author's request, but I'm still seeing a shedload of userbox pages with user requests to delete, have I mucked something up or is it just the servers taking time to catch up - do you see 76 pages with author request to delete? I thought all the transcluded userboxes would just go red. ϢereSpielChequers 18:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Will be handled by the job queue in time. Null-editing the pages in question would remove them from the category immediately. --Amalthea 18:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Amalthea, Looks like someone else has restored the template and declined the speedy. ϢereSpielChequers 18:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. That might speed the process up a little due to prioritization in the job queue, but otherwise it's just the same. Cheers, Amalthea 18:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Amalthea is correct, it can happen that pages are cached and will not show changes to templates, like deletions as well. It happens. In this case we have no such problem anyway, as Juliancolton restored the template now. Be more careful with G7 though, if others have substantially edited it, the creator's request is not important. Regards SoWhy 18:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, what I'm taking from this incident is that my understanding of a substantial edit needs resetting :-) ϢereSpielChequers 22:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

RE:CSD G7

Sorry about that. My mistake, as I have lost experience with the WikiScript formatting. Thanks!  Marlith (Talk)  15:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, just remember it for the next time. :-) YhwOs 16:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

• From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
• Special report: Community weighs license update
• News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
• 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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Shanman7's User Page

I am just wondering why my user page was on CAT:CSD in the first place. Was it a glitch that just "happened"? Any response would be great, Thanks. Shanman7 (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It was about the userbox {{user CVU4-en}} you and others have on your page. The creator of the userbox tagged it with {{db-g7}} but forgot that CSD taggings on Templates need to be in <noinclude>-tags, lest they are transcluded to all pages the template is used, like in this case. If that happens, the server takes some days to process the job queue with the changes, i.e. even if the tag is removed, it will still show up in category until it is processed anew. This can be sped up doing null edits, i.e. just loading the page and saving it without any changes. Such null-edits do not show up in the revision history. In some cases however, like in yours, it may happen that some special characters or anything like that are not correctly parsed and even saving the page without touching the edit window will create a change (for example add some blanks). The effect is the same, there are no changes visible but then it will show up because there was in fact a change, although none that can be perceived. Hope that explains it. Regards SoWhy 21:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry Hübchen

Can you please complete the afd nomination for Henry Hübchen? Not a notable actor by any standard.212.95.57.23 (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that would be disruptive. Henry Hübchen is quite notable, especially here in Germany. The last nomination was closed just 3 days ago as speedy keep. If you want to nominate it again, although I advise against it, create an account and do it yourself. Regards SoWhy 06:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

regarding Mohit Shah's page deletion

Hi,

Thanks for your comments in reference to my page, truth be told; I thoroughly read through the comments made on my page.

It has been a compilation of my secretary and a person who works on my PR management.

To address a few of the concerns brought up in both the discussions and speedy deletion messages, I'd like to preface by saying first that there may have been citation errors, when brought to my attention to review the Wikipedia my knowledge of how to code it was unknown. Not only did the posting process not make sense to me, I was getting confused on the citation process and the buttons above this window I'm typing in, didn't really make much sense.

So therefore I handed it over to staffers.

http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/2007/10/04/News/Gw.Students.Start.Indias.First.Hybrid.Power.Plant-3011644.shtml http://www.linkedin.com/in/mohitrshah http://www.zibb.com/article/4690884/Gujarat+set+to+get+investments+in+solar+power+sector http://www.collegemagazine.com/content/sophomore_entrepreneurs_high_solar_power http://www.vibrantgujarat.com/mous_2009/pdf/sector-mous/power-renewable.pdf

http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/record/2005/2005_E01189.pdf

Those are links to articles that show 1) Who I am. 2) What I'm doing. 3) Gives me the credibility.

The reason I suppose my story is interesting, is because I'm constantly fighting an uphill battle, I'm 21 years old, I do philanthropic work, I served the community countlessly, I've left college to pursue a environmentally friendly project. Why I'm different is because I'm 21 years old, because I signed an agreement with the Government of Gujarat for a project worth 1 billion dollars. Why I believe it's different is because I've spent my entire youth career as an advocate for education, leadership, and now I'm changing the world at a time when not many people wanted to. 1 year + ago no one cared for alternative energy, and now the boom! I'd associate myself as a part of that reason.

To be honest; I thought it would be motivational for other people who don't know my story and don't have the ability to speak with me in person to learn it. Regardless of whether you decide to stand by your decision or, reinstate my Wikipedia page, I respect your decision. I just know whether it be tomorrow or a year from now, I will make my story heard.

I thank you for your time and patience and consideration, hopefully it all works out, if not -- next time. If you choose to keep the page, maybe you could help me with the formatting of it, and I'll do it myself with assistance to meet your criteria, I feel it's all there, just up to you guys.

Thanks you. OH and sorry for the terrible formatting.

Mshah14 (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)mshah14

First of all, I did not delete that article, in fact I declined to speedy delete it on grounds of the possible notability of the subject. The deletion was a community decision made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohit Shah (a so-called "AFD"), which I cannot undo. If you disagree with the deletion, you can request a deletion review, pointing out your new evidence. Before you do so though, I suggest you read the following pages very carefully:

• Wikipedia:Notability (people)
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

If, after reading those pages, you still genuinly believe the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia and that this can be verified using reliable sources, then and only then you should try to overturn the deletion. You might want to contact the administrator who closed aforementioned AFD, Cirt (talk · contribs), first, to see whether they think a recreation of the article with your new claims and sources is compatible with that AFD. Regards SoWhy 06:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for pointing that, its my mistake, but as you can see, some others did the same, even cluebot did :-), anyways, sorry and I ll be more careful, and thank you for your time Maen. K. A. (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed, but I seem to have misplaced my bot-slapping-gear.

Anyway, no problem, we all make mistakes, it's just important to learn from them. :-) SoWhy 07:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ping!

You have mail. ∗ \ / (⁂) 08:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Template deletion filter

I'm going to try and make the filter you requested. Can you give an example of an edit that got it wrong that I can use in testing? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks in advance. For example this edit. It showed {{db-author}} on all userpages with the userbox and put them into CAT:CSD where they remained even after the speedy was declined. Regards SoWhy 10:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Thorn Birds Musical

Hi SoWhy, Thanks for picking that up for me. In the future, should I tag musicals as {{prod}}? I've seen a couple tonight, and wasn't sure what to do with them. Also, I see you have a mighty awesome template above this 'New Section' page, can I ask how you accomplished something so great? Or is it a trade secret ;-)? Cheers — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 11:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think they should be deleted, yes. CSD is very strict and if something does not fit the criteria, you cannot speedy delete it. As for the template, are you talking about this one? See Wikipedia:Editnotice how to do it, basically you just need an /Editnotice subpage that has the desired content. Regards SoWhy 11:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the heads up. I've been on a pretty extensive Wikibreak and have just returned, and I'm noticing all these cool little new things. Goes to show, even with some 3,000 edits under your belt, there's always room to learn! Thanks SoWhy! — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 11:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about that. I got still things to learn at 5 times that number of edits SoWhy 11:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Inter-organizational systems‎

Hello. You declined my speedy request for Inter-organizational systems‎ on the grounds that it does have context. Can you find anything in the article that explains what inter-organizational systems‎ are? It's all a specific story about Walmart, and provides no context for the purported topic of the article. It's as though someone created an article titled "Literature" and then wrote an article that didn't contain the word "literature" once and was instead all about some business issue facing one of the major booksellers. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point. The article title does not have to be explained in the text, because otherwise A1 would apply to perfectly written articles that happen to have an incorrect name. It just needs any context and it does have it. Use WP:PROD instead. Regards SoWhy 12:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Maedin/Emily Eavis

I should have looked further down the list! I missed the user pages templates. Thank you for taking care of the deletion, anyway, :-) Hope all is well with you! Maedin\^talk 12:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We live and learn ;-) You're welcome. Yeah, it's okay, haven't slept well the last days and I have to work but otherwise I'm fine. Hope you are, too :-) SoWhy 12:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It sucks that you're not sleeping well, I'm sorry to hear that. Hopefully it won't last long! You should drink camomile tea before you go to bed, it's supposed to help you nod off, :-D I am doing well and am really happy that spring is finally arriving! Busy, but enjoying the work (mostly!). Take care, :-) Maedin\^talk 12:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I might try but I don't think I have any at home and when I leave university today it will be after the shops close. But I hope it's not needed.

Glad to hear you are doing well and are happy :-D SoWhy 12:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just Me again

Hey.. noticed that Interroll article that you (I'd like to say we, but you did the work :P) nuked is back again. Can you confirm if it's the same editor? I thought I warned him, but the talk page is a redlink, so either I forgot, or there are multiple accounts. Cheers — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 12:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It was the same editor. I deleted it again. Please remember than G4 does only cover articles that were deleted at WP:XFD, not such that were deleted through WP:CSD or WP:PROD. Regards SoWhy 12:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Tsk.. I read "covers WP:PROD and WP:CSD" but missed the "does not" in front of it on the line before! Sorry for giving you extra work :) — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 13:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Middle Power and Great Power

Hi, thank you for protecting Middle Power. Please can you also consider protecting Great Power, where removal of sourced material without explanation by the same IP hopper is continuing? Thanks. Viewfinder (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a spark of vandalism today, I put a short time protection on it. Regards SoWhy 20:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Stun Gunz declined speedy

With this edit you declined my speedy deletion request, saying this band had "multiple claims of notability". The same named article has already been speedily deleted twice before, in March 2008 and in February 2009. And did you actually check out their references upon which editors are expected to verify their multiple claims of notability? One link to their own myspace page [8]; one link to a page that only offers a redirect to their own myspace page [9]; and one link where they are briefly mentioned in the last comment on a blog about some kind of flashmob event [10] - hardly solid claims to notability. Yet, they provide no evidence of any association with Abercrombie and Fitch, no evidence of having packed out a 15,000 seat venue in Texas, and no evidence of having spoken to the BBC - all events that could make them notable. Please can I urge you to reconsider your decision to decline my speedy deletion request. Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not have to make the same decisions as other admins did nor do two previous deletions mean it was the same article. Please re-read A7: It does not need any correct references to be made nor do the claims of notability have to verifiable. To fail A7 it's enough that there exist claims that are not completely impossible, which is the case. Working with a notable producer like Marty Munsch is such a claim, so is releasing material on the notable label Punk Rock Records. Those claims are enough to fail a speedy deletion and if you still think the article should be deleted, you can use WP:AFD instead. Regards SoWhy 13:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Richard L. Welch

I think you may have speedied the article under some other forms. I encountered it under yet another, but changed the name to this & did not delete it, as it didn't seem too promotional for an article to be made of it, if he;s notable, though it obviously needs much work. Just letting you know DGG (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your call is as valid as mine, so I won't say you are wrong or anything. The page I deleted was a userpage moved to a new name in article space, thus adding to the promotional-factor. Regards SoWhy 15:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Prankster's Dilemma

SoWhy - thanks for reviewing my CSD on The Prankster's Dilemma, however I am still confused by the result. This page was created on April Fools day with multiple sources listed but no inline citations. It also quotes "experts agree" but doesn't identify the sources. It also quotes the Paradox of the Gullible which has never existed. Seems to me to be an April Fools joke... but if you still disagree I'll review it from another perspective. JCutter (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Also - seemed similar to successful CSD April Fools' paradox JCutter (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the problem with hoaxes is, that they have to be blatant to be covered by G3. In this case it lists multiple sources which I cannot review (but which exist!) and the text is phrased in a way so that it might be real. So WP:PROD is the way to go to avoid the bad-faith assumption that G3 (vandalism!) carries. Regards SoWhy 08:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Got it - thanks. JCutter (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Planet of the Dead

Thanks for protecting it in The Right Version ^TM :). Could you tweak the protection to 11 April - that's when the episode airs, and an image that doesn't fail NFCC will be available? Black Kite 18:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Actually forget that, see below Black Kite 18:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Protection of Planet of the Dead

Hi - thanks for protecting the article (though you did the wrong version :p !!) Could you, however, time-limit it to some time before the 11 April, since the current indef-level is going to cause problems as more material about the upcoming episode emerges over the coming days? It would be absolutely crippling to not be able to edit the article at all until after it's aired! Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Actually yes, thinking about it TT is right here, the article is clearly going to expand over the next weeks or so. Perhaps insert some hidden text to warn editors not to insert random non-free images in the infobox until we've actually seen the episode? Black Kite 18:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Indef does not mean forever. I actually hope you guys can get over that a bit stupid image dispute very soon - I just cannot predict when that will happens, so I did not set an end time. Feel free to request unprotection any time you guys got consensus over that image... It's sad to see that even long-term users and admins take part in such edit-warring but that's the world... And Black Kite: You have to realize that your view is not necessarily the correct one so adding such a hidden text would effectively mean taking part in the dispute. Yes, the article might expand but I do not think until April 11 is needed, if you guys can sort it out. I hope I can unprotect it tomorrow or so, I got it on my watchlist. Regards SoWhy 18:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

When enforcing Foundation policy is seen as "edit-warring" then I'll agree with you. Until then... Black Kite 23:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Bank for International ideas

I would like to know why you have deleted my article - this ia a New system for economic development to help the people of the world - i have contacted the Wikipedia Information Team to shine more light on this dispute - their are many other articles on wikipedia that in my opinion are adverstiment and are not encyclopedia worthy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Idol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Wants_to_Be_a_Millionaire%3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySpace

their is also a press release on the subject http://www.prlog.org/10207508-the-bank-for-international-ideas-will-facilitate-economic-development-created-by-leonard-johnson.html

--Bankleonard (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

None of the examples you mention are blatant advertising. They are written in neutral tone and do not serve to promote their subjects. In contrast, your article serves to promote its subject. In fact, it's a 1:1 copy of a press release which makes it a copyright violation as well (text submitted to Wikipedia needs to be released under the GFDL). Wikipedia is not a place for you or anyone to promote their products and the article you mention was such a promotional one. Apart from the violations of our "no advertising"- and "no copyrighted text"-policies, it also had no indications whatsoever (and a short Google News search confirms this) that it's possibly notable and would have been deleted on those grounds alone. As tempting as it may be, please do not try to use Wikipedia for advertising purposes. It will not be tolerated. Regards SoWhy 09:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Todd Donovan

WP:ATHLETE states that an individual player is only notable if tehy have played in a fully professional game. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/Notability_guidelines. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the notability guidelines, thank you. But speedy criterion A7 is not about notability. It's about the possibility that the subject might be important or significant, a much lower standard than notability. If you think they fail WP:ATHLETE, feel free to use WP:PROD or WP:AFD to delete the article. Regards SoWhy 20:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in the article indicates notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That is your point of view and it's fine. I disagree and I made a decision to that extent. Even although you are an admin as well, that does not give you the right to revert my decision, which is both an abuse of revert and wheel-warring. I am open to criticism, but reverting me even before asking me about my decision is not very nice. Regards SoWhy 20:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It was not my intention to offend; I apologize.

What, then is your opinion of the statement at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/Notability_guidelines which says, "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable"? It would appear to me that mere statistics of playing do not infer notability. Something else must make that individual player stand out so as to confer notability. In that sense, then, if nothing indicates notability, it would apear to conform to {{a7}}. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/Notability_guidelines is not policy. And A7 is not about notability, not even indicating it. A7 uses "significance or importance" for that very reason. Imho being signed by multiple notable teams might make the individual important or significant. I agree that it's probably not the case but the point of A7 is to weed out the clearly rubbish articles, not those where there could be further debate on whether the article should be included. PROD and AFD handle those. Regards SoWhy 20:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I see it the same way SoWhy does. Having played for a notable team is an "assertion of importance". That's enough to get it past A7, it seperates him from all the schoolboy articles and myspace bands. In addition, he has numerous mentions at google news, so there is even the prospect to find significant coverage of him to pass WP:BIO. --Amalthea 21:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have changed my tactic to PROD to eliminate the need for this discussion, and will pursue to AFD for consensus if need be, or if no one convinces me otherwise. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

A question, if I may: In the edit summary you wrote: "never ever revert an admin for declining a speedy", and here you use the term "wheel-warring". Does this mean that you consider the removal of a speedy tag by an admin an administrative action? In other words, is it different from when a normal editor removes the tag? decltype (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If a normal user removes a speedy tag, any other user can (but shouldn't without good reason) re-add it. If an admin removed it, they have made an administrative decision that this page is not speedy-deletable. If someone re-adds it, it's then forum-shopping, because they try to get some other admin to ignore the declining admin's decision. If an admin speedy-deletes it or restores the tag, they are in essence reverting another admin's actions, which is the definition of wheel-warring (the only exception are valid G10 and G12 tags which the declining admin overlooked). See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive183#Questions_on_Wheel_warring_and_Admin_hopping. Regards SoWhy 14:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed! But I think the distinction between admin and non-admin removal is not 100% clear. Xeno states that the speedy tag probably should not be restored either way, and is supported by Protonk, who references WP:DELETE, the relevant quote being:

"Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions, mentioned below" (emphasis mine)

My interpretation of the policy and the discussion is thus as follows: In general, if a speedy deletion tag is removed, by an administrator or otherwise, it should not be restored. This is especially true when an administrator removes the tag, and another administrator restores the tag, as this constitutes wheel warring. Exceptions to the rule include pages that are blatant copyright violations, negative unsourced BLP's, and attack pages, which is basically what you said.

So the only question remaining is, (apart from the listed exceptions) when is it appropriate to restore a tag that was previously removed by a regular editor? I can't think of a scenario, except when the removal was done in bad faith. decltype (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The distinction is this: Any editor can remove a tag, but it's not a decision. If an editor removes a valid tag without explaining why they did it, the tag might be reinstated. You generally shouldn't and you need a good reason to do so, but you can do it. On the other hand, if an administrator does it (and usually they do so with a "declining speedy"-edit summary), they are making a decision that is binding. Other editors should not restore the tag because it is the reviewing admin's job to make that decision. Furthermore, an admin can decline a valid speedy tag if they think it should not be deleted. The difference is not very clear, but I'd sum it up as follows: A user removing a tag is a sign that the deletion is probably controversial. It may be retagged and an admin could still speedy delete it if they think it's not a valid reason to remove it or if they think it's not controversial. An admin removing the tag is a decision that this page does not meet speedy criteria, that it should not be deleted or that it's too controversial to delete. This decision is binding for anyone else who wants to tag or delete this page and forces those people to seek alternative ways for deletion even if the page might meet a speedy deletion criterion. As with everything, there are the exceptions of G10 and G12 because negative BLP and blatant copyvio cannot be tolerated, no matter what an admin thinks. Hope that makes it a bit more clear. Regards SoWhy 20:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that will do. I originally asked a seemingly innocuous question and as it turns out, the short answer is "Yes". But I much prefer the longer answer :) Thanks!

User:SoWhy/CSD

I just linked to your page there in my editnotice (I hope you don't mind) but then I noticed that there's a single individualized link at the bottom that makes it invalid if someone is reading it when I deleted their page - did you make a copy because of it? Do you think I shouldn't just link to a copy? -- Mentifisto 09:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I made a copy. The link is dynamically created based on the userspace the page is in (with {{TALKSPACEE}}:{{BASEPAGENAME}} magic words), so unless you copy it, it will point to my user talk page. As there is no way to create a page that will change this link based on the incoming link (i.e. from which user page the user came to this page), you need to copy it as well to have a correct link. As a bonus, you can change/remove what you don't think applicable to your admin work. The GFDL attribution should be fine with the link to the users where you got it from (at the very bottom). Regards SoWhy 09:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You don't think that the writing makes people give up, do you? -- Mentifisto 14:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. Most people don't even read that page before asking why I deleted their page. But maybe some do and maybe some understand it. It's a kind of FAQ, which, like most FAQs, most people don't read anyway. Those who bother to read it, are those who are not going to be fed up by it. SoWhy 14:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Zhao Yiman

Thanks for the save on this article. I noticed a quick speedy placed on it, just as I was trying to give some pointers to the author. I'm glad we were able to preserve the information. ;o) --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 14:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. That's why people like me have to double-check those tags, to remove those which are incorrect. Feel free to tell the tagger about such mistakes and how they can avoid it in future. Regards SoWhy 14:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Others have tried... --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 14:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't lose hope, I am confident people are able to change their way of doing page patrolling, some just need some more reminders. Regards SoWhy 14:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

John Carney Show

Can you please delete and block this: John Carney (radio)? It has been deleted before, it is a tiny non-notable show & there is obvious COI. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but G4 does only apply to previously WP:AFD-deleted articles. And this article indicates the notability of its subject because they are host on a notable radio station. Also, I usually think if an admin like Fuzheado (talk · contribs) creates an article that they are aware of our policies and do not go around creating incorrect pages. Regards SoWhy 15:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Adams

Hello SoWhy! I hope you are sleeping better, because I have a problem for you to help me solve, ;-) I randomly came across the article Kevin Adams, and noting that the birth date and place of birth had been removed, I re-added it on 24 March. Since then, the same info has been deleted and re-instated 3 times. Although the account that deletes the information changes, it is each time a single purpose account which only edits that Kevin Adams article once. It looks like this has been going on for a while; if you look through the history at the red linked names since 30 September, the majority make a single edit to the article to remove some information, usually the birth information. So, what do I need to do? I suspect that someone is abusing multiple accounts . . . where would I take this suspicion? Is that the major issue here, or should I focus on the perceived vandalism? Should I try to make contact and work out why they are removing the information? The information appears to be correct, so I sort of doubt that they are on a mission of accuracy. What's the best option, do you think? Maedin\^talk 14:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, I do. Ahh, what problems some people have. One might wonder why people do such things, but it creates more work for us or in this case you. The easiest way would be to protect the article but given the slow way, that would not be acceptable within protection policy. So I'd suggest you try and contact the latest account to do that. It'll probably not work but it's worth a try. Other than that, you might want to head to WP:SPI and see if a CheckUser identifies the latest SPA as a sock of someone else (see Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry#Single-purpose accounts). Other than that, I'm afraid you have to watchlist the article and just continue reverting. They hopefully will lose interest if they are reverted quickly. Regards SoWhy 16:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, ok, so it's as unclear as I thought it was! I will keep an eye on it and hopefully it will start to seem pointless to him! Or her, of course. SPI looks like a minefield, I will lurk and read the rules and pehaps take this there shortly when I have more time. Thank you very much!! :-) Maedin\^talk 12:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Paxse's RfA

Thanks for fixing the talk page link. ;-) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. Nice to see you jumped right into your new crat duties ;-) SoWhy 20:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback examples

I was surprised by your examples of bad rollbacks. The two you provided as examples were of people making random figure changes, which is classed as vandalism by most. On vandalism, sometimes I rollback and message, others I just roll back and ignore. If I'm reverting stale vandalism that appears to be an isolated incidedent, I don't usually drop a warning message.

I do use it for WP:BADCHART issues, but if I use it there, I consistently go to the talk page of the editor that made the offending edit and leave a message. The normal sequence of messages I use can be seen at User_talk:201.209.224.71.—Kww(talk) 11:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Without knowing what the editor was thinking, you cannot assume it to be vandalism. In such cases there is a possibility that the user just wanted to update the figures to what they heard somewhere. I don't think anyone should use rollback for such changes and I would be surprised if most people classified such possibly good-faith edits as vandalism (although I agree that this might happen). It's not about warnings, it's about the fact that we have undo for good-faith edits and that one should always explain their actions in edit summaries when it's not clearly vandalism. Everything else is BITEy. Regards SoWhy 11:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Hey SoWhy. On Alice Glass a sock puppet is continually adding unsourced information to the article. It's probably better to block the IP's as they appear, over semi protection. What do you think? — R² 15:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it's really a case of sock-puppeteering, I suggest you add/expand that to the WP:SPI case for this user and let the admins over at WP:SPI deal with it. I'm not very knowledgeable in those things and thus I do not want to give you any answer that might be incorrect. Regards SoWhy 15:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

OK will try that. Thanks. — R² 15:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

• Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
• News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
• WikiProject report: WikiProject China
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic IP

It's a dynamic IP (same for one day), I don't think admins would give a range block for an issue like that. Temporary semi-protection would force him to create an account, which would be better also because of privacy issues. Squash Racket (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless multiple IPs are used on the same day, blocking remains the more feasible option. Regards SoWhy 12:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

America's Next Top Model, Cycle 12

There are some IP edits from 68.6.149.9 while addition of unnecessary "spoilers" in future episodes. This is a fashion-themed reality competition with airs only two months. Can you protect it for 42 days? ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 07:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I declined it because that is the only IP that was active after protection expired with another IP reverting them. Unless blocking is not a feasible option (it is at the moment), protection should be avoided. Regards SoWhy 07:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Protection should be use if there is an IP spoiler information and it causes vandalism. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 07:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Not if the vandalism can be combatted by blocking the IP instead, see WP:PROTECT. Regards SoWhy 07:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a unique occurrence, any time that a top model cuycle page is unprotected during the cycle repeated cases of vandelism occur. there have been 2 in the few hours since the page was unprotected, and if iremains unprotected several more attempts will occur over the next 24 hours. Unless you plan on policing the article 24/7 yourself, and banning everyone who attempts to vandelize it, protection is needed. ... MistyWillows ^talk 08:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was. I said there was no further excessive vandalism after protection expired and that was true when I declined it. As further vandalism occurred now, I have protected the article. Regards SoWhy 08:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

NRISoft

I think that NRISoft is not like any other bodyshop/consulting company. Its into activism, against h1b visa holder abuse by their Indian owned bodyshops located in the Unites States. Some of the abuses include confiscating employee passports, keeping 8 h1bs in a 1 bedroom apartment, bringing them from India by charging them money(in essence smuggling), LCA violations, disobeying US labor laws including not paying money on the bench, h1b transfers without project, an USCIS RFE violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShravanDebbad (talk • contribs) 12:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That is fine but it was deleted because there was no indication whatsoever that the organisation is notable. Unless you can provide reliable sources that verify its notability or at least can explain why the organisation should be considered important or significant, any article about it may be speedy deleted. Regards SoWhy 12:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Upper Cloth revolt page protection

I disagree that it is content dispute. Please see these threats for a better perspective of what kind of editor(s) I was up against. --Docku: What's up? 14:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Insults and threats are unfortunate, they do not change the fact though that they are disagreeing on content reasons. Incivility and personal attacks are discouraged but they are also saying that they disagree with the fact that the disputed section's actions happened as often as claimed. You should try to remain calm and invite other neutral editors with knowledge in this area to discuss this and reach a neutral consensus, which can then be enforced. As for the attacks, they have been warned by an admin and if they continue this way, they can be dealt with. But the way someone disputes content does not mean the dispute itself does not exist. Regards SoWhy 16:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. However, this is my explanation. There is and has been caste system in India and is still existing. There are supposedly "upper" and "lower" castes based on profession. Nadar (caste), though has risen in their ranks to own big businesses and politically a powerful caste in modern time, have gone through some level of descrimation by Nairs and other castes in old days. One of the old traditions during that time was that Nadar (caste) women had not to wear upper clothes in front of "upper" class people. This is a fact recorded in many books.

Now, the content dispute is that there is a group of people bent upon removing this information from wikipedia for reasons that they think it belittles them. well, i understand that. And all that they are doing is just deleting that information or insulting me and threatening me. They are not engaging in any meaningful conversation. In a way, you can call it content dispute of course. but, you know what i mean. Hi, it is your call. i will stay away from that article anyway, it doesnt serve me anything to fight tooth and nail with some fanatics. --Docku: What's up? 17:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Point is, vandalism is removing content to disrupt. Removing content because you think it should not be in the article, for whatever strong reasons, does not allow us to assume it to be vandalism. Even if those editors violate WP:AGF, you should not do so. I suggest you invite some neutral users from WP:INDIA over there and get some consensus on the matter. If they do not want to participate, we cannot force them, but we should try it. Regards SoWhy 21:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have already posted here to attract the attention of Indian wikipedians. It is not always easy to find experts on a given topic. I was wondering where else to post and look for help, WP:RPP was probably not the correct place. guess will leave it there. Thanks anyway.--Docku: What's up?

Your ER

Hello, your [11] has been open past the 30 day time limit, and it needs to be archived to eliminated the backlog, if you wish to keep it open any longer, don't hesitate to ask. If not, I will need to archive it.--Truco 02:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I will archive it myself, but I want to keep it open for now. Regards SoWhy 05:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)