User talk:SoWhy/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

1000th

I just reached my 1,000th edit!woohoo.Currently I have 1,007..Just thought I let you know that I am halfway till nominating myself admin.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice, but you do realize that editcountitis is not a very wise trait in an admin candidate, don't you?

But seriously, you should not nominate yourself just because you reach 2000 edits. RFA is a very hard process on candidates (to put it mildly) and if you are not really ready, you will fail and fail with much opposition. Once you reach such a threshold, you should rather first request a editor review and/or request admin coaching and get as much input as possible about your editing. Regards SoWhy 13:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes , I realize that, but im just telling you, No one else.And I am currently being admin-coached.Also i'm waiting on support for a wikiproject, and im involved with 2 already, because I know you have to be well rounded to be an admin.Also , I will put myself on editor review, but do you think i should do it now? , or later?-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 11:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

But it's a wiki, what you tell me, you tell anyone who reads here ;-)

I think you should request an ER later, if you are near your adminship run, but you can always request more of them, like one now and one later. Regards SoWhy 12:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well.... I put up an editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Permethius,I would like to see what the community thinks of me right now and then when im close to running for adminship, I'll do it again, and compare the different thoughts.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A7 essay

Heya, I found the essay quite useful. Under the 'big mistakes' section you properly describe the practice of not re-tagging declined speedies. Is there any chance that's found in a policy somewhere? I'm only asking because I was recently quizzed by someone and couldn't find a source. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all: Thanks :-)

Then: It's not in the policy as far as I know, at least not directly. WP:CSD is not talking about it except when mentioning that admins "may delete", thus implying they might make a decision not to do so. Such a decision counts as an administrative action, so another admin ignoring it willingly effectively wheel-wars against it and re-tagging is a try to make that happen. I added a general worded example to WP:PARENT a few days back as this practice is general and widespread consensus as far as I can tell (but of course WP:CANVASS is "only" a guideline and not policy). It might be a good idea to think about expanding WP:CSD with that, you might want to raise it at WT:CSD. Regards SoWhy 20:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh well I tried! I was at a loss a few days back when I was explaining this to someone who replied 'where in policy does it say that'. I'll consider brining this up, Nja²⁴⁷ 20:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, ignoring WP:CANVASS is not a really smart move as well, so you can use that for now. Regards SoWhy 20:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Need information regarding Siradel page in English

Good morning,

We carefully red the page regarding why our page was deleted first.

If we may, one page has been created in Norwegian on Siradel company and would like to create one in English too. We translated the Norvegian document into English without trying to "market" Siradel. It is approximately the exact translation.

We were informed that you deleted the page.

Could you let us know what the "right" process is please?

Thanks in advance Simon HAYE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.6.100.213 (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Norwegian Wikipedia might not have the same standards as the English one, so this is nothing to compare it with. Then: It was not deleted for any advertising reason but because it did not indicate why it would meet our guidelines for inclusion (see Wikipedia:Notability (companies)). If you can provide a reason why the company can meet those guidelines, I'd be happy to restore the article. Be informed that you should provide reliable sources to verify those claims of notability after it was restored (press releases and company websites are not such sources). Regards SoWhy 09:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the version in Bokmål (one of the Norwegian languages). It rather looks like advertising there; it's just a stub. Interestingly there's not an article by that name in any other language. - Hordaland (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assessment. The English version was not really that advertising though, more in the lines of complete lack of any indication for inclusion-worthiness. I guess that is the same for the Bokmål language one as well? Regards SoWhy 12:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Where it is, year founded and lists of its products. - Hordaland (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem at Omid (satellite)

The edits made to Omid (satellite) have led to a circular redirect. All the information about this satellite has disappeared. Please fix. Interlingua 16:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Apparently R'n'B (talk · contribs) and I tried to delete-and-move the same page at exactly the same time, thus the software did not show the updated page on my action but just deleted it again. Sorry for the mess - the page is now at Omid. Regards SoWhy 17:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Transportation in Iran

There is an article for Transportation in Iran, but there are also 8 articles about the specific roads. They is only a single sentence long each one, with where they go, no citations and sometimes poor spelling. I'm wondering if these articles should be deleted. They are here, and at the bottom are links to the rest of them. Thanks for the help, Shanman7 00:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason for deletion. Instead, I suggest you merge the content (there is some in the infoboxes as well) to either Transportation in Iran or a new Roads in Iran and then turn the current articles into redirects. Regards SoWhy 11:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal

Hey. You protected the Middle power page twice (it's sill protected) and great power page once due to a IP vandal. The vandal is back on the great power page, so I have decided to report him here. Please come and add your two cents. Thanks. Deavenger (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. It's been moved [1] Deavenger (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have the time, please come and add your two cents. Deavenger (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Mundo de Mentiras and La Famiglia dei Furfanti

When 3 articles are created at the same time and one of them goes to AfD (La Luce di Vita), what should we do with the other two? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think the same reasons are valid, just list the other two with the same AFD. Template:AfD footer (multiple) lists the way to do that (in case you don't know). After all, if they are related (and hoax Italian soaps is the same motif for those three), it's useful to have people comment on all three. And if they are not, people will !vote to split the AFD afterwards, so nothing lost. Regards SoWhy 19:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that's best. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine. If you want to, I think Jaula de Lobos should be added to that as well. Regards SoWhy 19:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about CSD rules

Hi SoWhy - I know you're a CSD buff, and wondered if you could help me with my understanding of the rules. I'm looking at Ariella kashi. It was deleted earlier, but the author's contesting the speedy by asserting that the article's subject is notable. By my reading of the notability guideline, the assertion is wrong: there's no coverage of this person in third-party sources. So does the assertion of notability rule out CSD, or does the criterion need to take into account whether that assertion is correct?

There's also a COI thing going on here, but let's leave it out for now :) Thanks. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Per A7, the claim of importance or significance (this is a standard that is much lower than notability!) needs to be credible. A7 clearly states that this is enough "even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source". Whether there really exists notability or such sources is something that should be determined in other processes, A7 is only to weed out those where there is no possibility at all that they might meet the guidelines for inclusion. My essay Common A7 mistakes tries to clarify this criterion further (including multiple examples). Hope that clarifies it. If you have any more questions, do not hesitate to ask. Regards SoWhy 20:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: Seeing that the page you refer to was now deleted, this was an example where there were some claims of importance but they were completely non-credible (a 16-year old girl with "only" charitable services to her credit is never going to meet any guidelines for inclusion). Regards SoWhy 20:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, and thanks for the pointer on the essay. That's all clear. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Excellent Userpage Award
		Show off :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 02:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-D SoWhy 07:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj

Hi. I kept coming across the name Nicki Minaj, so I did a "what links here" and found about 30 articles, so I thought I'd create the page. Then I saw the deletion log, and that you and Orangemike had both deleted it within an hour of each other about 10 days ago. And I thought: "What's going on here? It looks like I'm walking into a minefield."
Would you mind giving me a brief summary of what IS going on, and advise me whether I should go ahead with the creation, or stay well away? With thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was deleted via a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicki Minaj, so both Orangemike's and my deletion were procedural deletions for recreation against that consensus. If you want to recreate this article, you should do so in your userspace, complete with reliable sources that verify that the artist meets the notability guideline for musicians (because being not-notable is the reason it was deleted in the first place). If you manage to do so, you can move it at its correct location (I suggest you add a comment that this is a new version that is not a recreation of the deleted version when moving) although I suggest you make sure you addressed the previous AFD's concerns before doing so (you could ask someone familiar with such articles to assess this, maybe a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians or Wikipedia:WikiProject Music). Hope that answers your questions, if not, feel free to ask. Regards SoWhy 07:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions and warnings; they look like good advice. The "deletion discussion" didn't seem to involve very much "discussion", did it! The deletion log suggests it has beeen deleted on 5 separate occassions - how can I determine if they were they all the same article, or five distinctly different articles, or something else? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can't, not being an admin. To allow you to understand the previous deletions, I have userfied the article to User:Pdfpdf/Nicki Minaj with all revisions restored. You can see the different versions by checking the creation and deletion dates in the history of the article. Basically, except the spammy version, all articles varied a bit in tone and style but none of them established any notability, which is why the previous consensus could be applied to them as well. Regards SoWhy 08:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff. Thanks - most appreciated. And thanks also for the potted summary and explanation. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet another barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		The Defender of the Wiki may be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. This award is given to editor Sowhy. Thank you so much for your efforts to defend the defenseless. You are not only a good example of a wikipedian, you are a great example of an administrator. Thank you for all your efforts. Wikipedia is a better site because of you. Ikip (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but remember what I told you about the language. You are not completely without blame. While the latest incident was indeed based on another admin's incorrect interpretation of guidelines, you need to tone down your rhetoric a bit to avoid that people even think about you this way. You do a good job at ARS - just be careful to view editors with different viewpoints as "the enemy". Regards SoWhy 16:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Child Abuse

I'd like ask you to reconsider your decision here. I think there is easily "heavy and persistent" as Wikipedia:Protection policy says is necessary for indefinite semi-protection. Thank you. Alan16 ^talk 20:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A word of advise, in general: Calling someone's decision "ludicrous" is usually not really helpful if you want them to reconsider that decision. On the contrary, they might feel insulted (for example if they are very experienced in making such decisions) confirm this decision to annoy you.

As for your request, I have to decline it unfortunately. The protection policy clearly limits such protection for much worse scenarios than 1 vandalism edit in 4 days. I left a more detailed response at RFPP. Regards SoWhy 21:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It is slightly worrying that an admin would suggest their experience is reason enough for a decision, surely everybody can be wrong? I responded to your response at the page. Alan16 ^talk 21:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely everybody can be wrong. But since when does this stop people from feeling insulted? Criticism is usually healthy (I appreciate it in fact) but some choices of words are ineffective and not helpful. Yes, I don't care about such things but I bet you someone might and you will have hurt your cause if they do. It's unfortunately too idealistic to believe that noone will feel insulted if you choose such words, so better choose your words carefully if you think they might. Regards SoWhy 21:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be the misconception that my word choice was careless. Words can used to provoke and gauge responses, part of their beauty and their curse. Anyway, we are going of subject. Thank you for taking the time to respond. Alan16 ^talk 21:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they can. But choose certain words and the only response you might get is the opposite of the one you want. My point was that you need to be careful when choosing such words because otherwise you will only hurt your cause, not help it. As for the subject at hand, I hope you understand why I made this decision in line with policy, even if you still disagree with it. Regards SoWhy 08:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it had an adverse effect on my cause as, like most admins, you have made a decision and intend to stick to it - and that wasn't meant to sound like an insult. And I think you have reasons for your decision, however I think there is certainly a case for some semi-protection. Alan16 ^talk 10:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is, that if your goal is to make an admin reconsider a decision, using such words that might make an admin/user believe that you think they are stupid (without intending it!) might lead to the user in question to stick by it just to spite you, even if they realize that they made a mistake. What we intend and what others hear is not always the same, especially on a page like this where you have many different users with different levels of skills in writing and understanding English (for example people like me where English is not their native tongue) and thus we need to be careful to choose words that are probably not insulting to any normal person.

As for the protection case, of course you can have your personal opinions on whether something needs to be protected or not. Unfortunately we cannot make administrative decisions based on personal opinions on what should be done or not if the policy is clearly against that. Regards SoWhy 11:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Return home

• May I ask why you declined the speedy deletion of this page? A Google search came up with nothing. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Because patent nonsense is something else, not a movie that does not exist. That would be a hoax, explicitly excluded from G1. As IMDB knows at least three movies with this name, it is not completely improbable that this was a good-faith attempt to describe such a movie, which makes it impossible to delete it as a "blatant hoax" in G3 (because that carries an implication of bad faith). See also WP:CSD#Non-criteria. Regards SoWhy 16:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Revoke Rollback Permissions

Hello you just deleted my talk page as requested. Can you also remove my rollback permissions? --Sidonuke (talk :: contribs) 19:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Good luck in your real life. Regards SoWhy 19:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sheree Ali

I don't know why that guy singled us out, but I remember this article being constantly created and recreated a couple of years ago. I didn't even have my admin tools returned to me at the time. I deleted and salted the talk page since it seems the article page had been previously salted. Thanks for letting me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I had no idea what this was about (I tagged it prod once though but nothing else) so I thought maybe one of you could make sense of it. Thanks for taking care of it. Regards SoWhy 19:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Sach

Just a question, I believe I tagged G3 after investigating, you deleted under A7. I'm not entirely sure why my reasoning for G3 was incorrect, I'd appreciate any feedback so I can be more accurate next time. Thanks. MLauba (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Because as a rule of thumb (at least that's how I interpret G3) to qualify a hoax as vandalism, it needs to be blatant enough that it's obvious without need for research. On the other hand, the subject might exist but has no indication to meet inclusion guidelines, so A7 was clearly fulfilled. But don't feel bad, R'n'B (talk · contribs) was about to G3 delete it just when I had already deleted it, so G3 was probably justifiable. I just feel that G3 carries a strong implication of bad faith (= vandalism!) so I try to avoid it where possible. Regards SoWhy 11:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks for the clarification. While we're at it, Obie Fernandez is on my watchlist and got PRODed. An IP with his first edit just reduced it to one line, implicitly contesting the PROD but also taking the article into A7 or A1 territory. I'm completely at loss here: revert the IP and thus re-prod? Leave it and AfD it? MLauba (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It still is not A7 or A1 because being a developer of notable software is an indication of notability (see also WP:A7M#BIO) and it has context to fail A1. Since they removed the prod, you have to view it as contesting it and should not re-add it. Take it to WP:AFD instead. Regards SoWhy 11:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sod this, I can probably source that :). Thanks again. MLauba (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's of course better than deleting, I do so myself often enough when faced with speedy-tags but it is an annoying job to do so: nice work on this - you probably established notability with that as well. If you need any further assistance, feel free to ask. Regards SoWhy 12:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's still a stub but I think it passes the GNG now. One deletion avoided :) Cheers, have a nice afternoon. MLauba (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thankyou for the grant of new page watcher, and for the comments unterneith the grant, it makes my efforts feel appreciated very muchly. Thankyou. Jamesööders (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
• News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
• WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
• 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

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Amvymra/Moutheater

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Amvymra/Moutheater. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Amvymra (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about deletion

Hi, I was wondering if you could explain why you deleted the content of No Mill Road Tesco (NMRT) Campaign on the grounds of "unambiguous copyright infringement" when I had put the quoted text into quotation format (or so I thought) and the material from the NMRT website is not, in any case, copyrighted. I'm new to wikipedia so would be grateful for some help! Thanks. Claudetc (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, if the whole article consists of text from somewhere else, even if marked as a quote, it's still copyright infringement. Quotes are allowed, but they should not make up 99%+ percent of the article. Then: Everything can be copyrighted, even if there is no © symbol or anything on it. For inclusion in Wikipedia, it must be explicitly released into public domain or under the GFDL or a compatible license. There was no sign of this on that page. You are free to recreate the page with your own words, but it might be re-deleted under another criterion, either as advertising or for not indicating significance or importance, so you might want to read Wikipedia:Your first article before considering to do so. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask. Regards SoWhy 16:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That was a very quick reply! Sorry if I'm being dense, but how is something "explicitly" released into the public domain in this context? Thanks. Claudetc (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You were lucky that I was online at this moment. Anyway: Something is explicitly released in public domain or under a certain license, if the webpage the content is on specifies as such (like this webpage has at Wikipedia:Copyrights) or a written letter or email to the Foundation by the copyright holder (detailed under Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission) releases the content under such a license. With text, it's usually easier to write it yourself rather than going through these lengths because text on other webpages usually is written from a non-neutral point of view and conflicts with our neutral point of view policy. Regards SoWhy 16:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I searched the article name in Google and found protein somewhere ans thought that it must mean protein. Sorry for the incorrect CSD. Thanks. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 11:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Point is, exactly this text needs to exist from another Wikimedia project, because if it does not, it might contain useful information that is still missing on this or another project. Regards SoWhy 11:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

SoWhy when you speedy delete articles untagged previously do you inform the creators? -- Mentifisto 12:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the article actually. Usually, I do not delete untagged articles but if I do, I'm usually checking whether the creator already created this or another deleted page and thus already has information about SD. Also, I usually warn on blatant vandalism and attack pages instead of using a sd-inform template. I admit though that I might not always have informed the creators where necessary and I welcome slaps to remind me. Regards SoWhy 12:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No I asked you because I was wondering why TW isn't made to do it automatically and whether I should ask about it. -- Mentifisto 15:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Good question. You might want to nag Amalthea (talk · contribs) about that, he is both very TW- and CSD-savvy. Regards SoWhy 15:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No need, someone has asked for that already. And no, Twinkle doesn't notify at the moment if you speedy it directly, without tagging.
It would be easy to just post our default SD notices, but most of the text is kind of pointless in those cases:

• [...] you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.

Is it still better than nothing? Or do we need a new slew of after-the-fact notices? Amalthea 15:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, can't we (i.e. you ) create a sort of master-template that says something like "I deleted your page XXX per criterion YYY" and the XXX and YYY are just parameters that TW fills in automatically? Of course, it would be nice if TW checked whether there is already a speedy-warning on that user's talk page, because otherwise it would be pointless. But it sounds like something that shouldn't be hard, you can borrow a lot of the text from the default notices after all :-) SoWhy 16:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you don't really just want to drop a "I deleted your page Red link per criterion A7" on a user talk page, you'll always want to explain what A7 is, basically the part

• This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

from {{db-a7-notice}}. That has to be stored somewhere, and it shouldn't be in the script (cause then only very few people would be willing to update them), so they need to be be put into a template.
What could be done however is to extract just the wording from above into a template which stores this text (and only the text) for all criteria, which could then be used in both tags. It'd need some changes so that it works both pre- and post-deletion, but that should be doable.
It might even make sense to extract the other wordings we have e.g. at {{Db-a7}}:

• an article about a real person, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject
• Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject

so that if a criterion is changed, all those wordings can be updated with less risk of them getting out of sync.
I was thinking about redoing the db-*-notice templates for quite a while already anyway ...
Amalthea 17:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Adama Keita

but i would have like my page reverted back to my user page not be deleted. couldn't he had done that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keitaadama (talk • contribs) 20:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

See your talk page, Casliber (talk · contribs) restored the page to your userspace. The page was deleted because you moved it to article namespace from your userspace. It was not deleted because it was your userpage. Regards SoWhy 20:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thole kaLanga

Last time I checked notability was not inherited. Has something changed? Ironholds (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked A7 was not about notability. — Sorry, but I just had to

You are right of course, notability is not inherited. But being the son of someone notable indicates that the person might be important or significant in their own right, just like children of actors are often receiving coverage of their own for example. So I think this is a case for WP:PROD instead. Regards SoWhy 11:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Soliton

ThanX for ur advice.
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Srtaight Up

A couple of things as you declined the speedy delet.

1) According to the user page of the creator of the page the name of the album is actually "Srtaight Up" not "Straight up", the name you moved the page to.
2) The artist in question does not have a a wikipage.
3) According to the userpage, th album has not been released yet as the article says, rather it will be relased in July.

Passportguy (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well...

1. Feel free to revert the move but in the article itself, the name "Straight Up" is used, so I guessed it to be one of multiple typos.
2. He does not have to. A9 has two requirements, no entry and no indication of importance or significance (as does A7). If one of them is met (i.e. here the latter), it does not meet A9.
3. Well, I have no idea, there are no sources. But that's not a reason for deletion.

Regards SoWhy 13:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but the article is about is by an unreleased album by an unknown artist, and that is a reason for deletion. Passportguy (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably, but not for speedy deletion if it asserts importance or significance and it does that (notable label, notable producer(s) etc.) You can always take it to AFD of course. Regards SoWhy 13:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sci-Mate article deletion

Hello SoWhy, I am trying to create a page explaining a community service for scientists called Sci-Mate, but you have taken it down. I have read your guidelines on this sort of thing, and yes I am a member of this community, but I do not stand to benefit personally from any extra traffic resulting from Wikipedia exposure. We run this site as a free community service for those who qualify for membership, and are not commercially orientated (we all work full-time in research positions). The site is also of general interest, particularly to the R&D community, which can be demonstrated by its separate coverage by Australia's major national paper The Australian, ABC's Future Tense program, and will shortly feature in the Journal of Science Communications. We might not be as notable as eBay and Microsoft, but I you might reconsider your decision to remove us from Wikipedia. I'd of course be very happy to change any aspect if you think it is too spam or ad-like. Regards, Christopher Dyer.XofD (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you forgot to mention reasons why the service is notable, which is why it was deleted in the first place. If you can indicate this, you are welcome to re-create the article (I can restore it if you need the previous text, just ask) but you should but mindful that you are in a conflict of interest and should be careful with sentences like "The Sci-Mate is a community project that will continue to develop according to the needs and wishes of its community of members." Also, please read Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you need further help, please just ask. Regards SoWhy 18:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the page, re-edited it- trying to adhere to the guidelines. If still not ok, please continue to be patient with me, as I genuinely don't understand some things that seem obvious to you. For example, I don't get why the sentence you quote is not ok in the context of the perceived conflict of interest. (that is just an example that you don't need to explain- unless there is a problem with what I changed it to) Cheers, XofD —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

The sentence is an example of predicting the future and personal reflection, both things that are misplaced in an encyclopedia. Now that you restored the article, you should really add those sources you mentioned before (Wikipedia:Citing sources will tell you how that is done), so it will not be speedy deleted again. Regards SoWhy 19:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Rival Brand

Another editor has tagged the article Rival Brand for proposed deletion, with the concern "No notability asserted-speedy declined but ""rival brand" clothing columbus" produces no relevant google news stories." However, the article already has a reference from a magazine. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, proposed deletion (PROD) does follow the general AFD criteria for a reason, just without the discussion. If you think it's an invalid reasoning, you can contest the prod by removing it and then the editor has to file it for AFD if they want to pursue deletion. Regards SoWhy 19:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

speedy delete of Gregg Valentino

Hi. The new article was speedy deleted before I could add the 'hangon' template. GSD G4 applies to content that:

is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted.

I never saw the old deleted article, but read the delete discussions. The source for the sparse information is new and not self-aggrandizing primary sources like before. The guy is a minor celebrity, is in the news every few months, and neutral accounts of him are hard to find online. We can fix that. Thanks Tafinucane (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

G4 does not mean that the text needs to be the same as in the deleted version but the content is substantially equal. If an article gets deleted, like this one, because there is no notability, then a new article needs to overcome this obstacle. Consensus at AFD determined that the subject is not notable just because of the documentary in which he was covered for his alleged steroid abuse. As such, you need to find reasons why the subject is notable outside this narrow context, else the previous AFDs' results are still applying to the newly created version, even if it uses different text. You might want to request that the AFD gets reviewed to determine whether the subject's notability has changed since the last AFD deletion. Unfortunately, from the source you used, I cannot see that this happened, the previous article had multiple of those sources and none were enough, even though reliable. Regards SoWhy 20:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. The cite I provided did not exist when the article was first deleted. Basically, there was a new biopic produced on the guy since the last debate. He received a fair amount of buzz, so is more notable than he was a year ago. I see that once a subject has been deemed not notable there is a pretty substantial barrier to re-insertion. Much more so than the dozens of other bodybuilder bio's on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.145.54.15 (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can see, the new biopic essentially is covering him for the same reasons as the old one, doesn't it? The subject didn't do anything else in the last year that would have increased their notability, did they? If they did, I'll restore the article for you of course. Regards SoWhy 07:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Occupation of the Baltic states

For the purpose of the page protection at Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II would it be possible to revert to my version from this morning which followed the article split? I split Occupation of the Baltic states into Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II and Baltic states and the Soviet Union‎. Occupation of the Baltic states during World War IIas it currently stands has been reverted to include everything from the original article, rather than reflecting that the original article was split in two. Not a major problem, but I think it will just be easier to understand what I started for anyone reviewing the situation. Thanks! Hiberniantears (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that would be wise. After all, the current version does not violate policies and if it was reverted to that, then it might be one of the reasons for the edit war. Reverting it back would essentially look as if I took a position in the content dispute which I think we should avoid at all costs. So as long as the current version does not violate policy or contain vandalism, I'd say we should not revert it and rather concentrate on solving the dispute quickly. Regards SoWhy 18:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It is fine either way, just thought I'd ask. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

One quick thing. Just wanted to make sure you were aware of this thread I opened on myself on ANI. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of The Splase

Sorry but I was still writing the review in MS Word and had yet to upload it, that was the reason it had nothing on it at the time. Could you please undelete the page? Thank You Simon Mason CEO of The Splase Thesplase (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is neither a place for newly created companies that are completely unnotable nor for promoting aforementioned companies. There is no point in undeleting the page, as the subsequent deletion of your recreation shows that it's unacceptable for Wikipedia. Regards SoWhy 09:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

List of multi-racial national football teams by continent of origin of players

Can you explain why you refused the deletion of List of multi-racial national football teams by continent of origin of players. It is a duplicate article and should at least redirect to the article it is a duplicate of. It is also poorly written, poorly sourced, not up to Wikipedia standards and the big image is a complete eyesore Spiderone (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Because there is a strict list of criteria for speedy deletion and none of them apply. If you think, it should redirect to that article, then just redirect it there. Regards SoWhy 16:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy

Thanks for protecting this entry so quickly. Hopefully that will discourage the posting of inappropriate links. Wperdue (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue

You are welcome. Let's hope it does. Regards SoWhy 18:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay!

Thanks for the information! I'll keep this in mind in the future.  :) Lychosis ^T/C 19:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Yash, Kumarasamy

A legitimate reason if you ask me. Sounds fair. - Vianello (Talk) 02:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Seven ways to greet a neighbor

To clarify, the entire article is not a copyvio, even the descriptions. The descriptions are directly translated section of the Arthashastra. In addition, it is not copy and pasted from the page, and upon further examination you will find that it does not contain the same text as found on the website. -download ׀ sign! 20:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Looked like the same text to me, minimally changed only. If you say, it's a translation, then sorry, it's fine to re-add it, as translations can only be done in a limited number of ways. Regards SoWhy 21:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I've rephrased the text. However, I've voluntarily created a deletion debate as Either way has questioned the topic's notability. Feel free to comment if you like. -download ׀ sign! 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Old Leagonians Cricket Club

Hello, I have had a page deleted. The text was copied off of the Old Leagonians Cricket Club website which I run. We are a small cricket club based in Epsom, Surrey, UK. We have been playing since 2002 and we have played many teams over the years. We believe in fairplay and having fun. That's what our website try's to promote. I'm currently revamping our website (see http://web.me.com/oldleagonianscc/Site/Welcome.html) and that's why I wanted to include Wikipedia. Thanks, Mike a.k.a. Hannibal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.141.75 (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia and all text added has to be released under the GFDL or come from sources with a GFDL-compatible license. No such license was found on the page in question. Even if you were the copyright owner and able to release the text under such a license, your club is very likely not notable enough to be included into Wikipedia and will probably be deleted as such. As much as I understand your enthusiam, Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your club and you should avoid trying to do so. Regards SoWhy 06:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello mate, just wanted to say thank you for un-protecting Steve McFadden, it's about time it was anyway once again many thanks for that yours faithfully :–) –78.150.69.71 (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Don't make me regret it ;-) SoWhy 07:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't, don't worry–78.150.69.71 (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

House-keeping and moves

Thanks for the information! - Epson291 (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

deletion of article Advanced Market Research Group

Hi,

I have seen that my article "Advanced Market Research Group" has been deleted on 02 may 2009.

The reason given is the text is from www.amrgindia.com/index.php

The above website belongs to me and i am the owner.

So i would request you to be kind enough to reinstate my article.

With regards,

KunnalKunnalamrg (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but those claims are not enough. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia and all text added has to be released under the GFDL or come from sources with a GFDL-compatible license. No such license was found on the page in question. Even if you were the copyright owner and able to release the text under such a license, I would only restore it to immediately re-delete it as unambiguous advertising, as your homepage, just like the text you added to Wikipedia, serves to promote your company, something Wikipedia does not need, want or tolerate (see Wikipedia:Spam). Your are welcome to write a neutral, sourced article if your company is notable within our guidelines but need to be careful that you are of course under a conflict of interest. Regards SoWhy 09:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

deletion of my page

Hi, You deleted my page (The Super Awesome Club of Super Awesome People) saying it was a blatant hoax.
I assure you this is no hoax. So far we have 2024 members, who get together (sometimes in real sometimes on the internet)
to discuss the list. I am in the process of getting a website made for the club so please could you kindly undelete my page? Thankyou for your time.

Oh, I'm deeply sorry - I misread the article to mean that those people you listed are members of it. Sorry for the incorrect use of G3 in this case. The article is covered under A7 though, as there is no indication whatsoever that this club of yours would be notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not serve to promote your club and unless you can provide reliable sources to verify that this club is in fact notable for inclusion or at least can make any credible claim why this should be the case, any recreation will be re-deleted (althogh with the correct reasons this time). Regards SoWhy 10:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Neologisms

Hi So Why, I appreciate the comments on the speedy deletion of Pisasu. I find neologisms and dictionary definitions difficult, obviously some are straight out vandalism and are obviously CFSD, while in some, like this, good faith has to be assumed. However I think a 1 sentance article giving a translation of a Hindi word has wp:snow chance of finding a permanent place in English wikipedia. Do you see any possibility of a SD category for neologisms and word translations that are not supported by verifiable 3rd party evidence. Cheers Porturology (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that it's unlikely to be kept, CSD has a section on Non-criteria and consensus is that WP:NOT reasons are not covered under SD rules. If they are blatant hoaxes, we can delete them as G3 anyway, but good-faith creations should be kept for a few days so someone with more knowledge can decide whether they might be suitable for trans-wiki for example or to be merged into another article. I think this has some merit, which is why I do not thing a SD category for such things would be wise. Regards SoWhy 10:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of my page again (A7)

Hi,
You deleted my page again (A7) The page is designed to inform people about the club.
How is this any different to, say, the Ku Klux Klan. It is a group of people, the wikipedia page for it is not taken down because it is informing people about the group, as is my page.
Thankyou for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caboose 911 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

See what I wrote above about Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The Ku Klux Klan, to stay with your example, has received wide coverage in reliable sources. Your club is something you do with your friends etc. and has no coverage at all, nor is there any reason to believe it to be significant or important in any way and I think if you are honest, you will know that yourself. Regards SoWhy 11:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right but i will find a loop hole. THE SUPER AWESOME CLUB OF SUPER AWESOME PEOPLE MUST BE KNOW BY THE WORLD!

Sorry, but there isn't one. Even if there were, Wikipedia has a set of unwritten rules like "use common sense" which would be used in those cases. I suggest you use the usual channels to promote your club, like MySpace and Facebook. They are made for it - Wikipedia is not. Regards SoWhy 12:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'll just go and make up some new disease on wikipedia then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caboose 911 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that we also have Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day as a guideline? ;-) SoWhy 12:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment on declining speedy deletion

When you declined a speedy deletion on Sounds from the Ground‎ you stated that suggested "Google News hits" indicate possible notability of the band. I'd like to ask you about this as when I searched for "Sounds from the Ground‎" I got zero results. Any idea what we are doing differently? I've also tried "Nick Woolfson" for zero hits and "Elliot Jones" for one hit. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mmmh, I got 19 hits, amongst them these: [2] [3] [4] (don't know about [5], cannot access it, not being American). But there is some (minor) coverage, so I think PROD or AFD should be preferred. Regards SoWhy 12:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those links, I wonder why I did not get them. Strange. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you had the News search limited to "last month" (default) or selected "English" as the only language and those are not categorized as being English? SoWhy 12:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking again i am seeing past month. Damn. Feeling embarresed here. Thank for setting me right. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all, happy to help. If you are using Firefox, I recommend this addon with

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q="$"&num=100&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&ned=us&as_user_ldate=&as_user_hdate=&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=

as the "search for" URL (copy it 1:1), it has the needed parameters encoded for allowing me to quickly search all the archives in any language and any date. Regards SoWhy 13:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect use of rollback

I realize that was an incorrect use of rollback. Seems my finger slipped on the trackpad and clicked "rollback" instead of "undo", and I didn't realize it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 16:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hence I did not use the word "abuse". You need to be more careful in general though, undo would have been equally incorrect in this case as the declining admin was within their right to do so and undoing them could be seen as admin-shopping. Regards SoWhy 16:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Jose Guillermo Cortines

I want to create a page for Jose Guillermo Cortines, but I notice it was previously deleted. I have a draft of a new article, but do not want to upload and have it delete it, so I thought I should consult first. I saw you where one of the administrator that suggested the deletion. Please help me with some guidelines so that this article can stay. Thanks--Juliaaltagracia (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(Page Stalker response) The best is to read through WP:WWMPD regarding recommendations for recreaction, and more generally WP:FIRST, in particular the section "Gathering References". Good luck! --MLauba (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I dont understand, what is (page stalker response) ? can you please explain. Please note that I was not the one who original created this article. I was going to do a new page here and received a warning that I was recreating a deleted page. That is why I came to ask you, I read everything that is on your page Attention. If you came here, because I deleted your article, please read here first!. and then decide to place this question. I have a draft in English with references and reliable sources and also I'm working in page in Wikipedia in Spanish [6] which is almost finish. I just wanted to know if there is a change to recreate the page, and not having without any trouble. Thanks --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Page Stalker means I'm not SoWhy but responding in his absence since I'm watching this page. If you're confident your article meets the reliable sources and verifiability policies, you can either go ahead and recreate it directly, post it to your userspace (eg User:Juliaaltagracia/Sandbox ) and ask for an opinion on it, or submit it to either Articles for Creation or deletion review for a broader review. --MLauba (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • ohhh forgive me, I read and did not notice it was someone else answering. Sorry.. lol. What you are saying is that I can't do the page unless I ask permition at Articles for recreation or deletion review. Sorry to give you all this questions. Thanks for the help. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• No, I'm actually saying the exact contrary. Unless the article is protected (which I can't verify as the spelling you posted here has no deletion history visible to me), if you are confident the draft passes WP:V and WP:RS, just go ahead and recreate it. I suggested resorting to AFC or DRV only if you're not confident in your draft and want broad third-party opinion. MLauba (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me take over here. Thanks to MLauba for his help, greatly appreciated. But, alas, he is not an admin so he cannot view the deleted versions like I can. I guess the correct name you are referring to is José Guillermo Cortines? Well, the previous versions were deleted for two reasons: The first one was a copy of another Wikipedia article, with the names changed; the second one was a 1:1 copy of text at http://www.joseguillermo.ws/, which is a copyright violation. If you can create a new article about a subject with this name that does not copy the text from other sources (even if you think you can use them!), you should be fine. Make sure, the subject can be assumed to be notable under our guidelines and try to provide reliable sources for this to verify these claims. Wikipedia:Your first article (aforementioned as WP:FIRST) gives you a good overview what is important for a new article in general. Judging from the reasons for the previous deletions, you only need to be careful not to violate copyright, they were not deleted for other reasons. Regards SoWhy 20:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you both for your help. I know is too much to ask, but can you just click to link I placed for the Article I just finished in Spanish? I will use the same external links and references for the article in English. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, despite my Italian heritage, my ability in Romance languages is limited, but I'll try. From what I can see, the "references" are mainly Yahoo! and imdb, both sources that are not considered reliable sources, at least not in the English Wikipedia. This and this look like reliable sources though and can be used. If you need more of them for an English entry (to replace Yahoo, imdb and press releases), you can search Google News which seems to have 30+ of them, albeit most of them in Spanish, so I cannot judge them thoroughly. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Citing sources on how to use those sources in the article then. Good luck with it! Regards SoWhy 21:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

There's request to unprotect the WP:NPOV/FAQ page you protected over at WP:RFPP. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the notification. :-) SoWhy 20:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Dreadstar † 21:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

IP Content Warrior in Great power and Middle power articles

I have started a topic at the Admin notice board about the IP user that keeps on removing content from the Great power and Middle power articles. I was wondering if I could get you to comment about the situation so that we can get this situation resolved. Thanks. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Castle Rock

Good day sir,

Since our talk at my page, I wanted to ask first before taking action. I have been on vandal/weasal patrol for the last several hours when I came upon this, thrice tagged, article Castle Rock Foundation. Now, to be honest, I don't see much of a point in this article besides blatant promotion of donators and the group itself. There appears to be no meaningful context to establish just why this group is so important. Before I threw on a deletion tag or something, I thought I would ask for your input. I thank you for your time. Kale Weathers (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take advantage of the stalkers invitation here. While the article is currently in a very bad shape and has been for a long time, it is very clearly not a case for a speedy deletion since it makes claims of notability, and an AfD procedure is unlikely to succeed since there are plenty of sources to be found, see this Google News search for instance. If I may, I suggest looking at any article with a viewpoint asking whether and how it can be improved so that it at least passes inclusion guidelines and thinking of deletion only as a last resort. MLauba (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, MLauba said most of it already, but I'm happy anyway, the more input, the better. So thanks even if I wrote some things again now. I don't mind :-)

First of all, there is no need for "sir" on Wikipedia, at least not for me. My nickname is good enough. As for the article in question, yes, the article has some problems and borders on advertising the group's success. Going with WP:BEFORE, deletion tags are the incorrect way to deal with the problem if the problem can be solved through editing, as it can be done in this case. It's not a case of speedy deletion, as it's not unambiguous promotion or advertising and it has claims of notability. If you have time, I suggest you take it upon yourself to clean up and source the article. Take a good/featured article of a charitable organisation as your example (e.g. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) and try to fix it up. You can find a number of reliable sources using Google News. Good luck! Regards SoWhy 16:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate both answers. I probably will follow up on it, in all honesty. However, my job only gives me just enough time to make quick edits and such. Perhaps when I have free time, I shall.

One last thing; please don't be offended by my formal tone. I was raised to treat people with respect until they prove unworthy of it. I use Sir and Ma'am as a way of establishing a calm, respectful dialogue, that's all. Now then, off to fight the weasals... Kale Weathers (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not offended by the tone, quite the opposite. I feel too young and unworthy to be called a "sir" SoWhy 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see. I *am* older. Well, I suppose mein guter Mann would be more appropriate, no? Kale Weathers (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Only if you want me to feel like...well, an old man^^ I still feel quite young ;-) SoWhy 20:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

---Well, not that it matters. Age is a mindset, more than anything else. Now then, junger Mann (!) I see that the point of my topic has been rendered moot.

Your Jaguar, Mlauba has beaten me to the punch. In anycase, guten Abend. Kale Weathers (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection

WP:ANI#User:Lar/Liberal Semi Grsz¹¹ 16:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

NPWatcher

Hi! Not to be a bother or pain, but the NPWatcher permission page currently has 5 people waiting for a response. Can you please give responses, since you have in the past? Thanks! Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 00:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Regards SoWhy 06:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A7

Hi SoWhy (or a stalker with good CSD knowledge :) ), can I ask your opinion on this deletion (subsequent discussion)? decltype (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You were correct to confront the deleting admin here. It shows a common mistake that many users and admins make, confusing A7 with notability. Yes, the subject probably fails both WP:BIO and WP:ENT but being in notable films indicates possible significance or importance, which is enough to fail A7. I'd have declined the speedy and suggested PROD or AFD because with such cases there is always the possibility that the role, even if minor, had a lasting impact on some significant group of people. Regards SoWhy 09:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reassuring. Those were my thoughts exactly. Except that there was no speedy tag to remove, since the creator removed it themselves.
Oh, and thanks for assessing Lina's article. I wonder how you found that :) On a serious note, I considered whether the quote could be perceived as a COI. I really don't think I have a COI, but if I do, I have at least declared it. decltype (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Just pure luck I guess . I don't think it fits under WP:COI, unless you work for her or have close ties to her. Just being a fan does not make you have a COI, not even if she acknowledges that you created the page. I wouldn't perceive it as such and as you say, even if someone did, they cannot blame you because 1.) you declared it and 2.) your editing does not reflect this. WP:COI allows people with a COI to edit after all - it just tells them to be very careful about it. Regards SoWhy 10:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

matrixizam

Please, put back my article about matrixizam! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prim. Dr. Frank Matrix (talk • contribs)

Unless you can tell me why this group and/or yourself should be considered notable under our guidelines, I won't. Also, this is the English-language Wikipedia, material in Croatian should be added to the Croatian-language Wikipedia. Regards SoWhy 10:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Editor Review

I have an editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Permethius. I have 2 reviews, which I have taken to heart, but would like your say.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 16:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy these days but I will try to review you tomorrow. Regards SoWhy 20:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion

SoWhy, Gaia Octavia Agrippa has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 19:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi

Thanks for reviewing my contributions and edit summary usage. I will admit that I am slack about edit summaries, but please consider that the overwhelming majority of my edits are to fairly low-traffic subject areas where my editing record is known by any others who happen to patrol those articles. I will try to do better, however, and I assure you that I would not fail to provide an adequate reason if performing admin duties. Everyking (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a wiki, as you should know and as such no article has a constant group of editors. I understand, that you might think it's not always needed but I think it is. There is always someone who does not know what you do to those articles and as such you should help them understand. After all, every time you do not use an edit summary, another editor might be forced to view the diff of your edit, thus costing them time they could otherwise use to improve the wiki. Yes, I know that this might not seem like much but it adds up. Regards SoWhy 17:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

awesomeeeee!!!!!!!!

you rock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.69.219 (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

- but thanks. What for? Regards SoWhy 17:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard wiese Article

Hi,

I wrote an article last week about Richard Wiese. I read the section before I wrote you this messag, but am still confuzed on why it was deleted. I hope you can help!

Thanks!

Lobo C88 (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it was written in a tone that served no other purpose than to promote the subject. Articles in Wikipedia need to be written from a neutral point of view; your article was written by someone whose goal was to promote Richard Wiese. You are welcome to write a new article about this subject but please heed our neutral point of view policy. Regards SoWhy 17:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for feedback

Hey SoWhy. It's been about three months since my RfA, and since you gave feedback then, I was wondering if you'd be willing to tell me how you think I'm doing in my editing. As you know, I've been around NPP since then and sometimes overlapping with your patrolling, so I'd very much appreciate your feedback if you have time. Thanks either way, FlyingToaster 19:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, well, well. Honestly, I was expecting this. Okay, I was expecting a second RFA by now but this was a close second. As I was ready to support you last time in general and only your CSD was problematic, let's examine it: Generally, it seems you have improved on it very much, which is good. Mistaggings, which were the norm at the time of your last RFA, are rare now. Your main problem is now that you seem to be too hasty sometimes. Take this tagging for example. From the article's name and the user name, it is quite clear that this was meant to be a user subpage that was misplaced and you could have simply moved it back to User:Entropy7/glutathione_supplements (I did so now). But of all other pages you tagged, I had to go back to April 7 to find one declined[7] which I declined myself (but not because it was incorrect but because it was cut-down-to-stub-able). As for the A7s, I found only two "mistakes" in the last month: Abadon andpersand cadre was not a A7 but an G3 (about someone born in 4321 = blatant hoax) and Little sack head was a G10 (and a A7 of course).

So, if you ask me, I think you have learned from that last RFA and learned very well. You seem to have re-considered your stance on speedy deletion and if you were to continue this way as an admin (using Google News and Scholar as a test before deleting and giving people time to finish articles), you would be one of the best CSD admins around, no kidding. That said, imho you can (and probably are planning to) request adminship again and you should be fine, at least when it comes to CSD. In fact, I am convinced that you have matured regarding this issue and I would offer to nominate your second RFA. Regards SoWhy 20:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review, SoWhy. I've definitely been trying to incorporate the feedback I received from you and others since the last RfA, so I'm glad that you're seeing a noticeable difference. I would be extremely honoured if you'd be willing to nominate me for a second RfA run. FlyingToaster 23:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Just tell me whenever you feel ready (I'm on vacation from May 13th to May 19th though, so you need to know either before or after that time if you want me to nominate you ;-)). Regards SoWhy 07:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case: yes, and I'm ready as soon as you are. :) FlyingToaster 07:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Woah, I'm blown away by your efficiency! Thanks, I'll get going on my end right away. Acalamari will be flying in for the conom. Enjoy the class! FlyingToaster 07:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. :) Amalthea 08:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you crazy talk-page stalker! ;) FlyingToaster 08:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

F r i e n d l y. It says "friendly talk page stalkers". ;) Amalthea 09:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You say tomato, chump. FlyingToaster 09:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol, quite true.
By the way, not much progress thus far on Pax Wikipedia, I wonder if you'll fare better. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 09:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Isn't "friendly" and "crazy" the same on Wikipedia? SoWhy 12:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably, either way good luck flying toaster (I had your second RFA watchlisted) and enjoy your hols SoWhy. ϢereSpielChequers 12:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Esattamente. Amalthea 13:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Guten Tag!

Wie Gehts?

It seems as though I keep coming back here. Well, on to the main.

I have been on a Random Article Rampage of epic proportion today and came across something of interest. Take a look at User:P176's page. Notice his "wiki" bio? Now, let's go over to Tom Bushell's article. Interesting enough for you? Well it get's better. Dan Marsh decided to get in on the action as well. Now, it seems to me that P176 has decided to make his pals famous. They all work together and, in addition to being weasel-filled, the articles are not really notable. And this time, I checked before tagging them. So, rather than wait the 7 days, do you feel that these pages are worth keeping? I mean, I can always delouse them....

In any case, I am off to see the Wizard... Kale Weathers (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, having a COI alone is nothing that makes them deletion worthy but you are probably right that they do not meet WP:GNG. I'd have taken them to AFD though because vanity pages often get recreated and AFD will create a G4-allowing consensus. Regards SoWhy 15:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Now, just to limit the number of times I have to bother you, if I take them to AFD, will I need to actually get involved with the process? I ask because I would prefer to spend my time doing useful things, as opposed to arguing for or against deletion. Oh, notice the absence of "Sir"? Just for you... Kale Weathers (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you have not. You just need to nominate it and outline why you think it should be deleted. Everything else is discussion then^^

PS: I noticed, lucky me ;-) Regards SoWhy 16:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did the AfD thing. Man that was difficult... Took me forever to find a way to make it appear on the list like everyone else's. I got about 90% of it right. Once again, I appreciate your assistance. Kale Weathers (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit complicated. You might want to add User:Jnothman/afd helper to your monobook.js which automatizes nominating an article for AFD. Regards SoWhy 17:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Nomination

Thanks so much - both for the very kind nomination and the speed of its writing - and right before a holiday too. I'll poke acalamari to add his conom, and we'll be off. :) FlyingToaster 15:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Good luck :-) Regards SoWhy 15:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, one small thing: is it alright with you if we add "(also known as Boriss)" to the start of the nomination? That's the name I go by on Wikipedia IRC channels. FlyingToaster 15:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Regards SoWhy 15:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: Don't forget to accept it once you transclude it ;-) SoWhy 15:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Have a good vacation! FlyingToaster 21:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. Tomorrow at this time I'll be at the airport =) SoWhy 06:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

• News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
• Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
• 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

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)