Wikipedia

User talk:SoWhy/Archive 22

< User talk:SoWhy
Latest comment: 13 years ago by SoWhy in topic Del Rev
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

File:Mytouch4gggg.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The following file is not orphaned because a reduced px version is being used on List of HTC Phones K.O.K Kev (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! No offense but this is a non-free potional image used by HTC. I read this policy. I contributed more to that page than you. Aside from that not all of those images on that page are 'eye grabbers', so based on your mind, should they should all be taggeed? Look, thsi image doesn't harm anyone, it's menat to show the reader teh basic structure. On that page, this phot is not that bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K.O.K Kev (talk • contribs) 04:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
If you read the policy, then you can explain to us why it is necessary to have an image that has a promotional slogan in it, which serves no purpose other than to advertise the product. Personally, I don't mind advertising for HTC, I like their products. But as an editor, our responsibility is to follow policies and they don't allow this image. Yes, most others are "eye grabbers" but they are also free images, taken by members of their own phones. WP:NFCC does not apply to them. As I said on your talk page, even if you argued that we need a picture in List of HTC phones (which I disagree with), then the picture in the article would be much more useful than one with an unnecessary promotional slogan, don't you agree? Regards SoWhy 08:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:T-Mobile-myTouch-HD-black.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Thanks for uploading File:T-Mobile-myTouch-HD-black.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page Stalkers Question

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

How do you know if you talk page has talk page stalkers?CanadianWagon (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I know because people told me. You usually notice when others start replying to messages on your talk page when you are away. :-D Regards SoWhy 20:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
You can also get the number of watchers a page has, using MZMcBride's tool: http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/watcher/?db=enwiki_p&titles=User+talk:SoWhy — Waterfox ~talk~ 22:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion


Edit War

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have a question. How do I prevent an edit war? If you look at my contributions, I deleted a comment made by an user. I explained my reasoning at the talk page and in the explanation box. He has not commented back and has put the comment back, this time with information that is not true.

My position for the removal of the first comment was this, as I stated in the explanation box: there are 8 organizations that were members of NALFO, and this user is adding information on only two of them, showing either favoritism or bias. Then, the user edited a comment on what I assumed is his org, and made reference to two other orgs. I deleted the references to both orgs as the comment was not true (as seen by the withdrawal dates). He then added a comment to one of the two orgs (which happens to be mine) (since I am biased, I am here coming to someone else). SLB was NOT a Founding member of NALFO, as he states, and he won't be able to show evidence to the contrary, nor did SLB withdraw from NALFO just for rushing, but for many reasons that can be summarized as "irreconcilable differences" in both of their strategies. He continues to put back the comment. How can this be resolved? I am an editor and contributor, but not very experienced in wikipedia's policies. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. The two articles are: NALFO and Sigma Lambda Beta. The org--Coquidragon (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Just like things should be revolved in the real world: By talking to the editor in question. If they are unwilling to communicate, try to ask others to give their feedback, for example by requesting a third opinion on the talk page of the articles in question. If this does not work, we have a list of methods for such conflicts located at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Of course those require the other user's participation, so if they are unwilling to participate, you can warn them about their behavior and if that's unsuccessful, request the page to be protected at WP:RFPP or report them for edit-warring at WP:ANEW. Regards SoWhy 15:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nomination for deletion of Template:Expand

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 Template:Expand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tis the season

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
 

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.


Thanks, have a great Saturnalia yourself. ;-) Regards SoWhy 07:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:expand

Latest comment: 13 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

You commented that it could be removed from the vast majority of articles it's currently on. Do you think we could formulate a set of criteria for bot removal? Gigs (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Depends on whether it is kept at TFD and if so, whether we can decide on changes. If we get consensus that tagging an article with that template has to be explained on the talk page or in the template or in the edit summary, a bot could remove it from any article that a) lacks a talk page and b) where the template was added without a edit summary (or with a standard-Twinkle-etc. edit summary). That alone should take care of a large number of such pages. Furthermore, the bot could compile a list of all removals and send every editor a batch-removal note, with a link to a list of articles they tagged this way, inviting them to review whether expansion is still needed.
The template itself could be modified like {{prod}}, i.e. that it shows a big warning if it's placed without a talk page link or explanation.
Though, to be clear, we would have to follow these steps:
  1. Keep the template at TFD (it looks like no consensus to me but then again, I'm biased)
  2. Discuss what changes should be made to make the template more effective (some good suggestions at the TFD, like a |category= and/or a |reason= parameter to be required)
  3. Then consider a bot to remove the template where no explanation was given when placing it (since we first have to have consensus that explanations should be mandatory before we can remove those lacking).
Regards SoWhy 22:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
What about something more mechanical, like based on length? If there was a talk page explanation, it would still remain for anyone interested. Gigs (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
It just occurred to me; where would this rationale be displayed? In the banner itself? That seems like it would violate our stylistic custom of not posting talk page material on article pages. The only banners I know of that do that are PROD and CSD, and those are very time limited and urgent. Gigs (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Length is, imho, not a good indicator. It could be used as a minimum value (i.e. the bot removes {{expand}} for articles shorter than XX and replace it with a stub-template) but not as a maximum value. Even long articles can be legitimately tagged with {{expand}} if they are unusably incomplete in parts. The bot should rather create a list of articles with the template which are larger than XX, so that they can be checked manually.
Not all talk page material is banned from article space. See {{missing information}} and {{missing information non-contentious}} for example. {{expand}} is similar to those templates, although it applies when information is incomplete rather than missing or when it's impossible to say what's missing (it's hard to say "please add material about X" if you don't know X is missing, but you know that something is missing). For example, the rationale could be displayed in a show/hide box in the banner, which means that the reader would only see a little "show" link where they can find more information if they are interested. But those are questions for a discussion and as I said above, no bot could be run without addressing the template itself first. Regards SoWhy 07:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Could we move User:SoWhy/expand to Template:Expand/sandbox and create a Template:Expand/testcases subpage? There may be a few things I can work on with this template as well. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I just created it in userspace for a rough demonstration, seeing as I have no real skills in template syntax coding, but you are welcome to use anything there and move anything elsewhere, although in this case copy+paste with a note where it's from will probably be easier. Regards SoWhy 22:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, I don't see the point now in even bothering to try to make the template more useful after User:Mono has misused RfC on the TFD. [1] Next time I'm looking to have something deleted I think I'll slap an RfC tag on it before being sarcastic, too. [2] --Tothwolf (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
If you are disappointed after each time someone acts in a way you don't agree with, you will never get anything done. Such things happen and how we deal with them it's the most important part. Whether the RFC-tag is correct or not (imho, deletion discussions of widely-used templates should always be as RFC and never at TFD) is not important, important is whether the template is kept or not. If this closes as "keep" or, more likely, "no consensus", we can then start working on it. At that point, any actions like that are irrelevant as well. And remember, WP:SARCASM is really helpful ;-) Regards SoWhy 07:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The non-neutral wording used for the RFC header is what I find problematic "The {{expand}} template is up for deletion, again, as obsolete." [3] which technically (if one wants to go there) violates WP:CANVAS#Campaigning. I agree that RFC can be useful, but only if used in an unbiased manner. It is clear Mono had something personal against the template from the RFC wording but after 5 days, the TFD discussion is "tainted" and it is too late to change the wording now. Anything other than a non-consensus close at this point will go right back to DRV just like the last several times.

...and yeah, sarcasm is really, really helpful [4] ;P --Tothwolf (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Think about it this way: Since the RFC tag is not neutral in tone, any competent closing admin will consider it appropriately and weigh !votes influenced by that wording accordingly. Regards SoWhy 18:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
That was my thinking as well, but I still feel disgusted with the use of non-neutral language for the RFC tag. After the last TFD and all the other discussion which has been taking place on the various talk pages, we really didn't need any more drama with the Expand-type templates. I'd offer Mono a {{trout}} if not for the fact I'm actively trying to avoid XfD conflicts after enduring 18+ months of near constant wikihounding and cyberstalking due to confronting someone else during a pointy AfD. While the mass notification by 134.253.26.6 was probably ill-advised given comments such as this, at least he seemed to be using neutral language and attempting to notify both "sides" of previous discussions. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I've done some more work on it in {{Expand/sandbox}} and {{Expand/testcases}}. Oddly enough we already had a concern type parameter as the second unnamed parameter (|2=). The existing first unnamed parameter (|1=) even allows {{Expand}} to be used on pages other than articles, although I think all I've seen in the TfD are people arguing about its usage on articles. Think we might be up to the Heymann Standard yet? ;) --Tothwolf (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the closing admin was unable to determine consensus correct (imho), so it first has to be sent to DRV, before we can maybe work on it... Regards SoWhy 17:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Didn't he even read the last two TFDs and DRVs? Are you planning to DRV it? I am beginning to really dislike XfD these days... I think the code I spent hours writing in {{Expand/sandbox}} is at least a good start. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Probably not. I'll probably DRV it but before I go there, I asked him to re-think his close. For a TFD, "keep but change" is a valid outcome and I don't think he considered that. Regards SoWhy 19:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
For the benefit of those involved in this conversation, I have added this to DRV - I can't remember the link to the DRV page, but you can get to it via Template:expand, where the DRV notice is at the top of the page. I don't want it gone, and damn me, it's not gonna happen :) BarkingFish 03:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
          Happy Holidays!
 
Dear SoWhy,
Best wishes to you and your family this holiday season, whether you are celebrating Christmas or a different holiday. It's a special time of the year for almost everyone, and there's always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! ;)
Love,
--Meaghan [talk] ≈ 15:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


Although I'm more of a grinch myself, I appreciate the thought :-) Regards SoWhy 07:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Misconceptions

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I restored the item. Usually the sources offer a little than the phrase "popular" or "common" misconception, but your sourcing is close enough and not worth quibbling about. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring it. :-) Regards SoWhy 16:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

DashBot patrolling sub standard pages as suitable for the encyclopedia!

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi SoWhy. The long lecture was not neccessary ;) even admins make mistakes like that all the time. It does however raise the question whether DashBot tagging new pages only 2 minutes after the application of a CSD, PROD, or AfD tag is of much use. You are probably aware that a great many, if not most new articles, are made by SPA who don't care much for our policies and guidelines, and they have no hesitation in removing maintenance templates within seconds of them being applied. This is a very real problem, especially when I am heading a major new project that is currently underway with an aim to dramatically improving the quality of new page patrolling, and hence quality control. --Kudpung (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. It was not meant to be a lecture, sorry if it sounded that way. I understand your reasoning but I also think that patrolling was simply not meant to deal with such concerns. If we were to leave any article unpatrolled that was tagged with a template, most, if not all of them, would stay unpatrolled for a long time, thus defeating the whole purpose of having the feature in the first place. Regards SoWhy 14:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Assistance

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Could you please look into and possibly follow up on the discussion at User talk:JPG-GR#Template:WikiProject Amiga? I feel like I'm getting the brush-off there and due to IRL stuff I really don't have the time to argue something so silly right now. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not at home this weekend. Was the problem solved? Regards SoWhy 17:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
No, unfortunately it doesn't appear to have been solved. The closing admin refuses to restore the template even though the nomination reason was mistaken and there were no arguments for deletion aside from the nomination reason. [5] I don't feel DRV is the place for this but the closing admin doesn't seem to want to correct the mistake. As I also mentioned on his talk page, if this didn't involve the use of administrative tools, then it would be trivial to revert such a mistake per WP:BRD but because it does, a "regular editor" can't fix it the correct way. I still have a copy of the template and could easily recreate it, but as I mentioned on his talk page, it wouldn't surprise me if a new page patroller would then try to CSD G4 it. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, if the closing admin outright refuses to restore the template, you pretty much have to use DRV for it. It's either that or recreating it in a different form (as you seem to intend) which carries the risk of an incorrect G4-deletion, which then would lead to DRV as well, so you might just go to DRV right now. Regards SoWhy 10:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me, if I recreated the template, it would be recreated in the same form. The nomination reason was faulty, and with no other arguments for deletion aside from the nomination reason, the close is also faulty. I feel rather strongly that this is something that the closing admin should be fixing rather than shoving it under the rug and pointing at DRV and I find the lack of accountability in this case rather distasteful. Was {{tfd}} even added to the template when it was listed at TfD? I never saw it on my watchlist and only later saw the deletion itself, although it is possible I may have somehow missed it. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I see. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view) admins cannot be forced to undo something if they think they acted correctly. That's what DRV was created for. As for information, yes, it was tagged with {{tfd}} on 12 January 2011. Good luck at DRV :-) Regards SoWhy 21:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Kampf, this article just doesn't look notable to me. Smallbones (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, but I'm not arguing that it is, I just declined speedy deletion since significance was indicated and it thus failed A7. As such, I'm not opposed to it being discussed at AFD :-) Regards SoWhy 18:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for being here

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  Valued Contributor Award  
You have been identified as a valued contributor and your efforts are appreciated. We are honored to present you with the Valued Contributor Award and we thank you for donating your time, expertise and effort to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. Thanks. (more details)

I just wanted to say thanks for all the years you've been here helping. Especially the help making things easier on newbies. It's important that you are here and I sincerely appreciate all of your many, many tireless hours. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H3O+) 11:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it's nice to feel valuable. :-) Regards SoWhy 12:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Input requested

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'd welcome your input on the question I've asked at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7_and_sources. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. :-) Regards SoWhy 17:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Re

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Sorry about that; it looked like the creator had removed the tag. My bad. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I just activated the notification so that you know I removed it again, so that you can consider your next action(s). Please remember to check the editing history before tagging though. Regards SoWhy 18:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I think what happened is I hit the diff button instead of the history button, and jumped to the wrong conclusion. I'm usually good about not doing that; I shall be more careful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

SoWhy, if you don't have Blade's talk page watched, can you comment on my note there? A quick view of google news shows only a single hit (from games.com, I haven't looked at it yet). There are lots of ghits, but mostly they were 'hay look at our Castle Age cheats'. One or two reviews that are from after the last deletion discussion. Still not sure that it would meet WP:WEB, which was its deletion reason previously. Syrthiss (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The decline was for G11 since it is not purely promotional in tone. The previous AFDs were from 2007 and 2009 and there are at least 13 GNews hits from 2010, i.e. that appeared after the last AFD. I won't say it meets WP:WEB now but I think that with so much time since the last AFD and because the previous versions contained less material, G4 shouldn't be applied, so a new AFD is probably the best way to act here. Regards SoWhy 19:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Syrthiss (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick response; I'll wait on this for a little while and see what happens. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Yesterday I added a new article, providing information for linking to an existing Wikipedia article, but this new article was flagged and quickly deleted for not conforming to Wikipedia's notability rules. Specifically, this new article was called "Emedia", it briefly described the company Emedia, and one purpose was to link to an Emedia reference within the Wikipedia article "Neil Stiles", hence providing readers of "Neil Stiles" richer information. (Neil Stiles was a former director of Emedia).

Should the fact that an article subject having a reference within an existing Wikipedia article be taken into account when establishing relevance or notability? If not, how can a reader of the Neil Stiles article find out more about Emedia or any of the other organizations referenced within the Neil Stiles article? For example, can a registered contributor (myself) externally link from the Neil Stiles article to emedia's website?

Thanks in advance for your help & advice

Hi there. First of all, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages such as this one using "~~~~".
Then, regarding your question: All articles are separate. The existence of one subject does not influence whether another subject should have an article. So the fact that Neil Stiles has one does not mean eMedia should have one as well. That said if you had included the fact that Stiles was CEO of eMedia, it would probably not have been speedy deleted (per A7). But the article about eMedia would still have to be notable on its own, as described on WP:CORP. You might want to try to recreate the article after making sure eMedia is notable within our guidelines. Regards SoWhy 18:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ray William Johnson

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion

This Ray William Johnson issue needs to be laid to rest once and for all. People are trying to twist what I say in regards to the rules to try and get any link they provide used so Johnson can get added. They also want to disregard Wikipedia rules just so they can get him on the list. As I said, I want this issue laid to rest once and for all. Please respond on my talk page, thanks. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess this is a start of some outside opinions. I've never made a request for comments. I will browse around that page and see where to go form there. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 21:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
PokeHomsar is trying to twist what I said into something I didn't. I know he is failing at it. But it's disruptive to the Wikipedia process. He is making it seem like I said a college newspaper isn't a credible source. I commented on the style of article that written not where it came from. Plus he came at me on my talk page. He seems to have a personal problem with me as he's coming at me for upholding Wikipedia rules. I know I said he is failing it, but it's getting old. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I still haven't fully looked over RFC page yet. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I've submitted an RFC. I will now wait to see the comments. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 21:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Castle Age

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to seek your kind attention to Castle Age. Kindly review. It was previously contested for deletion, You declined the request, The requester as re requested deletion. Kindly look into the matter.

I would further like to seek your mentor ship, for improving quality in my article creation and edits Arshan.abbas (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. My decline was on procedural grounds because speedy deletion did not apply. That said, it's now in the hands of the community to decide. I would recommend you read the essay Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! if you are new to the process of AFD. Generally, you need to prove during the discussion that the subject of your article is notable by providing reliable sources that cover it. Unfortunately, while I found enough coverage to decline speedy deletion (see Blake's !vote in the AFD), I don't think there is enough coverage to rescue the article at this time. If you do find further sources and you are unsure whether they are reliable enough to be used, you can post them to my talk page and I will review them.
As for mentorship, I do offer adoption but in an informal way. You can turn to me whenever you have any questions but unlike other adopters, I do not offer specific "classes" or similar tasks for adoptees to complete. Thus you should consider what style of adoption fits your personal learning style best - trying to find out things yourself and ask when that fails or having someone tell you things? If you prefer the latter, you can find a huge number of willing adopters at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters, including information on their style and interests. Regards SoWhy 09:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I have placed some more links. Kindly review content and format. I will be seeking your attention in improving my creations and edits. Arshan.abbas (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
These links are possibly useful: [6], [7] and [8]. The rest are just blogs or other member-contributed pages that are not reliable or just primary sources like app listings (not reliable sources). I cleaned it up a bit (you should try to convert them to correct references but I don't have time now) though. You should comment on the deletion discussion and mention those three new sources in favor of keeping the article. Regards SoWhy 20:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Second Opinion On Toby Turner

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a discussion going on Toby Turner on the talk page for List of YouTube personalities. Now there have been some links presented in hopes they will be suitable. I would like a second opinion just so it doesn't spiral out of control like the Ray William Johnson issue. Thanks. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm unsure whether that's sufficient actually. You might want to ask for assistance from the guys frequenting Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard who are far more knowledgeable than I am in such matters. Regards SoWhy 22:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Roland Doe

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello! Just a line of thanks for your help at the abovementioned article. You did us a great service and gave good help over there. It will help improve that article tremendously.75.21.153.58 (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just wanted to thank you for your very insightful comment at WT:CSD. I can see the rationale behind A7 now. Perhaps it's worth putting a footnote in WP:CSD or something explaining why A7 only applies for orgs, real people, and web content? Thanks again. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 16:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I like your idea; there is actually a box saying that this proposal has failed previously at the "Non-criteria" section. I added a footnote with a short explanation to it, hopefully one that people can understand. If you have any more interest in speedy deletion and especially A7, you might want to have a look at my essay WP:A7M. Regards SoWhy 18:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Underwood

Latest comment: 13 years ago28 comments4 people in discussion

Underwood made a new section about Ray William Johnson. He is accusing people of removing discussions because of "bias." But if you see my response, you will see I politely told him that any discussion over 30 days old are automatically moved to the archives by a bot. He is now disregarding reason and finding any reason to complain which is disrupting the Wikpedia process. Reasoning with this person doesn't seem to work. So, some other measures might need to be taken. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed. I would advise you to take a step back from those discussions. There is unlikely to be anything that can be said to persuade them that they are wrong, so it's just wasted energy to try convince them. Regards SoWhy 19:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I understand and I've been trying to limit myself from those discussions. But until they get their way and he is added, I will at least have to see these discussions. Rjc is now is even spinning stuff about admins like they are not following their "own" rules. It seems like this person is saying that when the rules are followed, they are everyones. But when they are not, they are the admins. Johnnybgoode helped make my point. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 21:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I read it as well and I am pretty sure I am one of those admins he refers to. But sometimes it's better to step back and let others comment on it. Regards SoWhy 21:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
They keep thinking I'm an admin which I'm not. I find it funny that they think so. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I haven't commented since my last comment and they keep going on about it because they have a grudge. We are now "WikiPolice" and "WikiNazis..." Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
It happens. I filed a request at WP:N/N requesting more input on RWJ's notability. Regards SoWhy 08:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
So not mentioning anybody by name is a personal attack but you are openly attacking me here? There is also no way I went off on the 'bot removal' post. Alright then. I will notify WP about this.Underwoodl06 (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Mentioning your name is not a personal attack, it's the only possible way to refer to you, isn't it? I did not insult you or refer to you in any derogatory way after all. On the other hand, you have described those not sharing your point of view as "Nazis"; whether you say "X is a Nazi" or "everyone disagreeing with me on this is a Nazi" is essentially the same, if the group you disagree can be easily determined by reading the page you made such remarks on. Instead of making such (really really demeaning) comparisons, just focus on the content-side issues. You will notice that most other editors, both agreeing and disagreeing with you, have been able to focus on the subject of the discussion without feeling the need to insulting any single editor or group of editors. Regards SoWhy 07:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have spent some time searching for sources about Ray William Johnson. There are very few reliable ones. This article from the local Inishowen News provides nontrivial coverage of the subject. This column from The Arbiter, a student newspaper of Boise State University provides in-depth coverage of Johnson. This article from Süddeutsche Zeitung, the largest German national subscription daily newspaper, provides a paragraph of coverage. This article from Beyaz Gazete contains significant coverage of the subject. For someone who is "the second biggest YouTube tracker with more than 2.7 million subscribers", it is surprising that he has received so little coverage in third-party reliable sources.

From the sources above, it is possible that Johnson barely passes the general notability guideline but I am dubious. SoWhy and Fishhead2100, what do you think about the reliability and breadth of these sources? Are they enough to establish notability? Cunard (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Most of those sources have been mentioned already, the "Süddeutsche" (which I read myself daily) mentions him only in passing and the "Arbiter" looks like a blog to me. I have already indicated on the talk page that I'm amazed that so little coverage exists. Just like you, I'm doubtful that he passed WP:GNG or WP:BIO with those sources alone but since I'm far too involved by now, I would love to have some outside opinions instead (which is why I posted at WP:N/N). Regards SoWhy 09:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
What is the criteria for inclusion in List of YouTube personalities? Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:List of YouTube personalities states "All new entries must be for notable artists that have received significant coverage in one or more reliable sources." The list currently contains several individuals who lack articles and are presumably non-notable (disinterest would not be an issue since these individuals' many fans would have already created articles for them). Such entries are each sourced with at least one secondary source. It appears that the actual criterion for inclusion is whether the individuals are covered in third-party reliable sources. Because Ray William Johnson has received a paragraph of coverage in Süddeutsche Zeitung, I don't see why he should not be included in the list. Cunard (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Since I wrote those requirements, I'm probably not the one to ask whether they are correct or not. The discussion on inclusion criteria was mostly at the 4th AFD where a number of people voiced their concerns/opinions that entries to the list have to meet the notability criteria to be included. I think the standard here is probably Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people which requires that the person is notable per WP:BIO. I'm no expert but I'm unsure whether a short paragraph of coverage is "significant coverage" as required in WP:BIO. That said, I'm more than happy to have others discuss this, that's why I recommended the RFC (that unfortunately is not used well) and why I requested help at WP:N/N. Regards SoWhy 10:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I see your revert here. The cited Süddeutsche Zeitung does, as you say, qualify as a reliable source that verifies the content but does not establish notability. I consider "significant coverage" to be more than a short paragraph and I believe most in the community would agree with that position.

It appears that a more stringent standard is being applied to Ray William Johnson than others on the list (those who lack Wikipedia articles but have also received secondary coverage). For consistency and per the concerns at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination), should those entries without Wikipedia articles also be removed?

I agree with you about RfC. Most fail to attract the attention of uninvolved editors. Cunard (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, your first sentence was very confusing (you're not the one to ask even though you wrote the requirements?). ;) The following sentences ended my confusion though. Cunard (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I meant because I created said editnotice, I'm not the one to ask whether those requirements are the correct ones to apply ;-)
I agree that there are a number of entries on the list that also fail those standards (as was pointed out by a number of people on the talk page) but unfortunately noone had the time yet to clean the article up. Unfortunately, this has lead to some believing that the correct way to act was to add another entry that does not meet those requirements instead of removing those that don't. Regards SoWhy 11:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
You make an interesting point about people complaining about entries that shouldn't be on the list yet won't do anything about it. They are pulling out WP:SEP which I stumbled upon when you linked to it in your essays portion of your userpages. But they also use WP:OTHERCRAP as excuse to get Ray William Johnson on the list. Nine times out of ten, OTHERCRAP is useless to use when using it to back up your argument and a waste of everyone's time. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
To achieve greater participation in an RfC, I recommend contacting every active participant of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination). Instead of having an RfC about Ray William Johnson, a fresh RfC should be opened. Ideally, it would be broader and pose the question: "What are the inclusion criteria for this list?" Once consensus has been achieved, a link to the RfC could be added to the top of the page, which you can point to every time someone attempts to insert a non-notable individual. On the other entries that fail the standards: Those should be removed. Not doing so only causes those keen on adding other non-notable individuals to believe that there is bias involved on who is included in the list. I will do so myself once the page protection expires. (Remind me if I forget to do so.) Cunard (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, Cunard. I know, I asked a lot of you and I have no right to ask this, but would you mind creating such an RFC and contacting those editors? I fear that if Fishhead2100 or I did it, those in favor of RWJ's inclusion would just see it as another step in our "personal bias" to prevent his inclusion. Maybe if someone neutral did it, they won't. As for the removal of non-notable individuals, I'd appreciate your help. I will create a copy of the page in usersace later and I/we can start removing them even while protection is on (I'm on vacation from the 8th to the 14th and I want to help before that). Regards SoWhy 10:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that we should hold off on removing the non-notable individuals until a consensus has emerged at the RfC I will start. Removing those without articles should be fairly simple, so I don't think you need to work on it in your userspace. By the time the page protection has expired and the RfC has reached an agreement, the article will have been significantly changed. Consolidating the changes would take much time. No need to stress out before your vacationing. Have fun wherever you're going. You'll be envied! Cunard (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


Sure. I'll start the RfC and notify every active editor at the AfD. You've patiently served me in the past, so it's high time I reciprocate. ;) By the way, your sentence above "I asked a lot..." would read better grammatically as "I am asking a lot...". Cunard (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a draft of the RfC below:

==RfC: The criteria for inclusion on [[List of YouTube personalities]]==

What are the criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities?

A person should be included on the list if s/he has

1. A high YouTube ranking, which means a high number of subscribers or a high number of channel views.

2. Many Google hits.

Should all people on this list have a Wikipedia article? Options

1. People who have received coverage in secondary reliable sources but are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article per the standards at Wikipedia:Notability (people) should be included on the list.

2. Only people who have Wikipedia articles and are notable per the standards at Wikipedia:Notability (people) should be included on the list.

If you have any suggestions about what to add or tweak, feel free to make them. Cunard (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. As for the proposed RFC wording, I'm unsure but doesn't the second part contradict the first one? If they should only be included if they meet WP:BIO, aren't YouTube ranking and Google hits irrelevant? If the reliable source covers a subject as a YouTube personality, why require hits in YouTube or Google? Regards SoWhy 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Good points. I have revised the RfC:

==RfC: The criteria for inclusion on [[List of YouTube personalities]]==

What are the criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities?

Should all people on this list have a Wikipedia article? Options:
  1. A high YouTube ranking, which means a high number of subscribers or a high number of channel views, is enough for inclusion on the list.
  2. A high number of Google hits is enough for inclusion on this list.
  3. Pursuant to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people, people who have received coverage in secondary reliable sources but are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article per the standards at Wikipedia:Notability (people) can be included on the list.
  4. Only people who have Wikipedia articles and are notable per the standards at Wikipedia:Notability (people) can be included on the list.
I include the high YouTube ranking and the Google hits because those are frequently used as reasons someone should be included on the list. I have consolidated them into one question, which hopefully rectifies any contradictions. Cunard (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe include a link to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people? Regards SoWhy 20:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Done. I will begin the RfC. Cunard (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for all your help. You are a really great guy (too bad you don't want to run for admin). :-) I hope this will help solve that and other conflicts with this article. Regards SoWhy 22:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. My thoughts about my running for adminship have not changed, but thank you for your very kind words. :) I've closed Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RFC: Ray William Johnson and will begin notifying the participants at the AfD. Cunard (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Panagiotis Xenos-Kokoletsis (talk · contribs)

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Since you brought it up at ANI... y'know... it is very difficult to take this 3RR-thing seriously when one person is allowed to ignore all concerns, use two different IPs to circumvent scrutiny, and is allowed to continue. Just saying. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I know, which is why I brought it up at ANI after all. Please try to get some admin attention for this problem at ANI. I'm currently on vacation, so I cannot do it myself. Regards SWM (SoWhy[on]Mobile) 18:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 13 March 2011 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_YouTube_personalities#Ban_SoWhy_and_Mr_CC.3F.3F

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Courtesy link, even though it is a go no where "proposal" CTJF83 18:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Maybe the whole mess is resolved when I return from vacation but I doubt it. Thanks for participating on the talk page btw, any help from more experienced editors might help. Regards SWM (SoWhy[on]Mobile) 22:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Userpage

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi SoWhy,

Just to say you have the most calming userpage I've ever seen. It's really beautiful! --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, thank you. I should update it to Spring though, just haven't found a good panorama image yet. Btw, what a coincidence that you are writing me, I had noted your comments at Fae's RFA (I think) and I was truly impressed. If you ever need assistance, I'd be happy to help you. Regards SoWhy 19:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been seeing your name around and thought I'd find out who you were. I don't really like opposing, hopefully I at least gave Fae a decent explanation.
Thanks for the offer :) I'm learning new page patrol at the moment so you might see my speedies whooshing your way soon.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's nice of you :-)
Don't worry about that oppose, opposing people is always hard to do because we all know how devastating it is to be opposed at RFA (I know from first-hand experience) but it's better to be honest to your fellow editors than not telling them. Since you gave a good explanation, it's most likely more helpful than harmful.
I'm currently not doing much speedy work myself but if you like I can review your taggings, just ask. On a side note, you should make sure you always leave edit summaries for your edits. They don't take much time and they help others understand why you made your edits. If you haven't seen it yet, there is an option in your preferences under "Editing" named "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Regards SoWhy 11:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've turned on the edit summaries thingummy, thanks for the advice.
It would be really good to have a tool that tells me whether my CSDs and PRODS got deleted, and whether I put them under the right category, to flag up any errors I make. I've been adding them to my watchlist for now, but it would be nice to have something more systematic. Does such a thing exist? --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Admins sometimes notify users when their taggings are declined or the tag was changed to something more suitable but they don't have to. As for PRODs, there is a bot, that leaves messages when a prod is contested but I cannot remember its name. I don't know of any tool for the purposes you describe, although you can add them to a user sub-page and the links will turn red if deleted. I know it's not what you wanted but it's a start. You could have a look at the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts to see whether something helps or as at WP:VPT if someone knows a tool like that. Regards SoWhy 20:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you!

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What a lovely surprise! It wasn't a mess. It was a good start... and I've just left comments on the talk page. Amandajm (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Ha!

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was just looking at stuff online and this is what I found [9] Amandajm (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

New Pages and New Users

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.

What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.

I know this isn't necessarily your standard fare, but with your involvement in WP:NEWT I thought it might be up your alley. If you're interested, read Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/New pages, sign up and get involved; questions can be dropped on the talkpage or directed at me. Ironholds (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Locus (webcomic)

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. It seems you ignored the "hang on"-template on Locus (webcomic) - which is not only a comic on the web. - see Talk:Locus (webcomic). Please restore. Thanks Anjoe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC).

Actually, I noticed that template and your message but as far as I can see, Indyplanet is not a publisher but prints comics "on demand". It would only be a credible claim to importance if the comic has been printed regardless of demand, for example in a newspaper or a book. Regards SoWhy 20:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion declined for Jacob Barnett?

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I read the guidelines for speedy deletion, and in particular, it falls under class A7 as the article does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. Classification A7 is not contingent upon whether or not it claims the existence of a source.Negi(afk) (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Quoting it in full:

A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content).
An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools),[1] or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. This criterion does not apply to species of animals, only to individual animal(s). The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.[2] The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.
  • {{db-a7}}, {{db-person}} – for people, {{db-band}} – for bands, {{db-club}} – for clubs, societies, groups, and organizations, {{db-inc}} – for companies and corporations, {{db-web}} – for websites, {{db-animal}} – for individual animals

Please note the bolded text, and in particular the fact that there is a distinction between A7 and existence/reliability of a source. Negi(afk) (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have re-added the speedy deletion request pending your response. I claim that it falls under the purview of Speedy-deletion:A7 in that it does not even assert significance/importance.Negi(afk) (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Although I don't usually like to point it out, I am in fact doing this a little longer than you have and I have a long experience in what is or is not an article eligible for A7. In this case, you seem to misunderstand A7's requirements: As written in the policy, any credible indication of importance is enough to fail A7. Being covered in a reliable, third-party source is such an indication because it indicates the possibility of enough coverage to justify the notability requirements. Please remember that A7's threshold of "importance or significance" is a much lower standard than notability, so it's much easier to fulfill it. This is not a judgment on whether the article can or cannot be deleted using the articles for deletion process but only whether it's eligible for the much stricter speedy deletion process. I compiled a list of common mistakes with A7 at my essay at WP:A7M if you have further interest. Please remember that while you may disagree with this decision, it does reflect consensus on such issues.
On a side note, to maybe prevent further misunderstandings: any administrator can decline almost any speedy deletion request even if the page meets one or more criteria, a decision that is usually binding for all other administrators (retagging such a declined article will be considered "admin shopping"). We are allowed by policy to delete such pages but we are not forced to do so (excluding obvious attack pages or copyright violations). Regards SoWhy 20:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Eddy Gould

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This person was added to the List of YouTube personalities. Now citation 58, 59, and 61 are not suitable. Citation 60 looks like I could be. I skimmed over it. But what do you think? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Salaì

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

...on your DYK! Amandajm (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but you deserve a fair share of that credit ;-) Regards SoWhy 11:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Deleted edits review

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi SoWhy. Thanks for your offer of having to take a look at some of my deleted edits, I'd really appreciate it. If I'm honest, I don't think there is any major problems with my tagging, but then I can't really check my self :). There's no urgency, just when you have a minute. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, you are welcome. I took a random sample of your contributions, both deleted and not. Some notes:
GANM - Global Anti Nuclear Movement
I would have tagged this as A7, rather than G11. The common consensus for G11 is that the article has to be empty if you remove all the spammy parts and in this case I think a stub would have been left. Generally I feel that A7 is better than G11 when self-promotion is likely because the latter implies that a non-spammy version would have been kept.
Mayflower Women's Hospital India
You tagged this as A1 after removing copyvio. You should remember that A1 is only for articles that do not have any context in any revision. Otherwise one could just remove the context, then tag it A1.
Sean Og
Despite its deletion, I think this was a mistagging. The language was not spammy enough for G11 and it featured multiple claims to importance (#1 in Irish download charts, offers from major labels, etc.) that ruled out A7. I also had not much trouble finding at least one reliable source
User:T3h 1337 b0y/User 17-4
This tagging of yours displays a number of problems: First of all, you did not check the history, otherwise you would have noticed that it was already tagged as such once and declined. Second of all, G1 rarely applies to anything and this was clearly a userbox, so it surely wasn't patent nonsense, even if you do not speak leet. Last but not least, evne if G1 were correct, in such cases you should first contact the creator since the fact that you don't understand a template does not mean that the template is faulty.
If you do not remember those pages, just tell me and I will restore a copy of it. Other than those examples, I think your taggings are really good, so keep up the good work. :-) Regards SoWhy 11:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much, for your detailed review and speedy response time :) I'll take on board your suggestions, especially remembering to check the page history/contact the creator when tagging userspace pages. Would you remind temporairly restoring those three pages to User:Acather96/CSD, I'll U1 it as soon as I've looked over them. Thanks, once again :) Acather96 (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
You are most welcome. I restored the contents of the pages to said page. If you need any other help, please let me know. Regards SoWhy 17:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How to format a hidden table

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

{{helpme}}

I'd like to know if anyone can help with this issue. Thanks in advance. Below is a Chart / Table that is "hidden". If you click the word "[show]" that appears all the way over to the far right, this will change the hidden Table so that it is unhidden / viewable. My question is: Is there any way to "move" that Show Command? Can it be moved more to the left of the screen? Can it be moved to be immediately after the words This is a List of Notable Salutatorians? If so, how is this achieved? Or am I "stuck" with it being all the way over to the far, far right --- and, with so much blank white space in between --- risking its going unnoticed? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

This is a List of Notable Salutatorians
List of Notable Salutatorians
01. Kathy Augustine First female State Controller in Nevada [10]
02. Parisse Boothe Actress (Deadwood) [11]
03. Ronnie Burke Son of female serial killer Velma Barfield [12]
04. Jimmy Carter 39th President of the United States (1977-1981) [13]
05. Jacki R. Chan Actress, model, musician, and stunt performer [14]
06. Daniel Chun Comedy writer (The Simpsons) [15]
07. Henry Roe Cloud First Native American to attend Yale University [16]
08. Rah Digga Hip hop artist and rapper [17]
09. Ray Edwards NFL football player (Minnesota Vikings) [18]
10. Juan Ponce Enrile Senator of the Philippines [19]
11. Richard Reid Fliehr Adoptive father of professional wrestler Ric Flair [20]
12. Georgie Anne Geyer Journalist and foreign affairs columnist [21]
13. John Heisman Namesake of the Heisman Trophy [22]
14. Todd David Hess Commander in the United States Air Force [23]
15. Oliver Hill Civil rights lawyer (Brown v. Board of Education) [24]
16. Gary Hirte Eagle Scout and teenage murderer [25]
17. George H. Hitchings Pharmacologist and Nobel laureate [26]
18. John Legend R&B singer–songwriter [27]
19. Monica Lewinsky White House intern in Bill Clinton sex scandal [28]
20. Holly Maddux Murder victim of Ira Einhorn, the "Unicorn Killer" [29]
21. Del Martin Partner in California's first same-sex marriage [30]
22. Tim McGraw Country music singer [31]
23. Evan Mecham Governor of Arizona (1987-1988) [32]
24. Aaron Miller College pitcher drafted by Los Angeles Dodgers [33]
25. Robert S. Mulliken Chemist and Nobel laureate [34]
26. Michelle Obama First Lady of the United States [35]
27. Walter O'Malley Owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers [36]
28. Bettie Page Pin-up model and Playboy Playmate [37]
29. Linus Pauling Chemist and Nobel laureate [38]
30. George Poage First African American to win an Olympic medal [39]
31. James Knox Polk 11th President of the United States (1845-1849) [40]
32. Robin Roberts Co-anchor of Good Morning America [41]
33. Eliza Schneider Voice actress (South Park) [42]
34. Erich Segal Author and screenwriter (Love Story) [43]
35. William Howard Taft 27th President of the United States (1909-1913) [44]
36. Carrie Underwood Country pop singer and American Idol winner [45]
37. John Wayne Iconic actor (Stagecoach, The Searchers) [46]
38. Ryan Weemer Marine accused of war crimes in Iraq [47]
39. Robert Wone Victim of a bizarre and unsolved murder [48]
40. Jeremiah Wright Controversial former pastor of Barack Obama [49]
You can use toggle=left as a parameter to move the "Show" button to the left (I changed it below to show you how it will look). Regards SoWhy 09:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a List of Notable Salutatorians
List of Notable Salutatorians
01. Kathy Augustine First female State Controller in Nevada [50]
02. Parisse Boothe Actress (Deadwood) [51]
03. Ronnie Burke Son of female serial killer Velma Barfield [52]
04. Jimmy Carter 39th President of the United States (1977-1981) [53]
05. Jacki R. Chan Actress, model, musician, and stunt performer [54]
06. Daniel Chun Comedy writer (The Simpsons) [55]
07. Henry Roe Cloud First Native American to attend Yale University [56]
08. Rah Digga Hip hop artist and rapper [57]
09. Ray Edwards NFL football player (Minnesota Vikings) [58]
10. Juan Ponce Enrile Senator of the Philippines [59]
11. Richard Reid Fliehr Adoptive father of professional wrestler Ric Flair [60]
12. Georgie Anne Geyer Journalist and foreign affairs columnist [61]
13. John Heisman Namesake of the Heisman Trophy [62]
14. Todd David Hess Commander in the United States Air Force [63]
15. Oliver Hill Civil rights lawyer (Brown v. Board of Education) [64]
16. Gary Hirte Eagle Scout and teenage murderer [65]
17. George H. Hitchings Pharmacologist and Nobel laureate [66]
18. John Legend R&B singer–songwriter [67]
19. Monica Lewinsky White House intern in Bill Clinton sex scandal [68]
20. Holly Maddux Murder victim of Ira Einhorn, the "Unicorn Killer" [69]
21. Del Martin Partner in California's first same-sex marriage [70]
22. Tim McGraw Country music singer [71]
23. Evan Mecham Governor of Arizona (1987-1988) [72]
24. Aaron Miller College pitcher drafted by Los Angeles Dodgers [73]
25. Robert S. Mulliken Chemist and Nobel laureate [74]
26. Michelle Obama First Lady of the United States [75]
27. Walter O'Malley Owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers [76]
28. Bettie Page Pin-up model and Playboy Playmate [77]
29. Linus Pauling Chemist and Nobel laureate [78]
30. George Poage First African American to win an Olympic medal [79]
31. James Knox Polk 11th President of the United States (1845-1849) [80]
32. Robin Roberts Co-anchor of Good Morning America [81]
33. Eliza Schneider Voice actress (South Park) [82]
34. Erich Segal Author and screenwriter (Love Story) [83]
35. William Howard Taft 27th President of the United States (1909-1913) [84]
36. Carrie Underwood Country pop singer and American Idol winner [85]
37. John Wayne Iconic actor (Stagecoach, The Searchers) [86]
38. Ryan Weemer Marine accused of war crimes in Iraq [87]
39. Robert Wone Victim of a bizarre and unsolved murder [88]
40. Jeremiah Wright Controversial former pastor of Barack Obama [89]
Great! That is helpful, thank you. Now, are there any other options -- other than toggle left and toggle right -- that a user has? Or just those two? And, in particular ... is it possible to make my text come out like this?
This is a List of Notable Salutatorians [ show ]. In other words, to move the "show" command to be immediately after the title instead of immediately before the title? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
Not that I'm aware of, but you can right-align the title and [show] so they will appear next to each other on the right side of the list. Take a look at Template:Hidden begin-end/doc for more. Xenon54 (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed reply. I was away for awhile. And, I am now finally getting around to things that I had left unattended on my Talk Page. Thanks for your help above. Much appreciated. Thank you! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC))
Hah, almost 2 years, nice you still thought about it. Welcome back :-D Regards SoWhy 21:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of YouTube personalities

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi SoWhy. Template:Editnotices/Page/List of YouTube personalities needs to be updated after the closure of the RfC. Point #2 is outdated. Because the page is protected, I cannot edit it. My proposed changes are here. Feel free to revise if necessary and if you agree, please make the changes to the editnotice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Just another reason why you should finally run for admin.  
I'll have a look and change it. Regards SoWhy 21:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
What I wrote at User talk:SoWhy/Archive 20#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 4 a year ago is still applicable today. ;) Thank you for your service. Cunard (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Damn you, you fooled me to do your bidding...again! SoWhy 21:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Catfish Jim's RFA

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi SoWhy,

I don't want you to feel like I'm talking 'behind your back' per say, so I thought I'd let you know of my compliment on Catfish Jim's talk page.

I hope you do take it as a compliment as that it what it is meant to be! :)

Thanks,

The Helpful One 15:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's good that you help keep up my reputation as the ruthless, mean CSD reviewer that will maul any candidate that does not have a 99.999% success rate...just kidding of course  
I do hope that Catfish Jim is not disheartened by my little criticism, I am quite aware that he is probably much better than most in his approach to speedy deletion. I just think it's too important an area to ignore when evaluating the candidate. Regards SoWhy 16:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Not at all disheartened... thanks for bringing them up. It's good to know there is some rigour to the process. All the best, Catfish Jim & the soapdish 21:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

u being a idiot

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

you dont get it do you? :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.114.65 (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate as to why this is the case? I'm afraid your insults are rather pointless if you do not tell me about the context. Regards SoWhy 18:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I think he's talking about this. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Possibly but that does not really explain what I should "get" ;-) Regards SoWhy 19:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
And now you're destined to never "get it".....Useight (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


Speedy deletion of Template:’s

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A tag has been placed on Template:’s requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. 78.26 (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Never mind, I undid this. 78.26 (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You usually shouldn't expect that just because someone is experienced, they know what they are doing. I often don't ;-) But I'll be happy to explain that particular edit to you. As you know, '' and ''' can be used to create italic and bold text but when you try to add a ' character next to this formatting (for example to use 's), it will be misinterpreted (for example ''Text'''s text will not create Text's text but Texts text). But your T3 would have been correct, I missed {{'s}} that does essentially the same, so I redirected it there. So thanks for the message. ;-) Regards SoWhy 18:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'd like to claim I was bright enough to know about {{'s}}, but I can't in good conscience. I'm glad for the explanation. I'm more experienced in HTML editing, but your explanation makes a lot of sense, and I'll probably be glad for the education in the near future when I have an "Oh, yeah, now I remember how to do this!" moment. All the best, 78.26 (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

More Kravitz Design help

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you so much for your help on the Kravitz Design. I appreciate it SO much. Do you know how to change the heading of the page from Kravitz Design to Kravitz Design Inc. Let me know!! Thank you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.197.178 (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. You are welcome. Unfortunately, concerning your request, that won't be possible. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies), company status indicators like "Inc.", "LLC", etc. should not be included in the article title. Regards SoWhy 19:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

referred to talk page Hanjie

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Some editors did look at List of bus routes in Pittsburgh but it happened to part of bus wikiproject page. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Buses All I need to know when List_of_bus_routes_in_Pittsburgh is going to be check again by WikiProject Buses Editors?

Hanjietalk May 9 2011 8:14 UTC —Preceding undated comment added 08:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC).

Replied on your talk page. Regards SoWhy 08:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Question from one lawyer to another

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I see from your "about me" page that you're a referendar. As I've acknowledged on my user page, I'm an attorney in Texas. I'm curious what you think of the current Foundation proposal to, inter alia, simplify policy (second bullet point). The question is whether complex policy cures or exacerbates disruption and positive editing. My feeling is that we need simple, but non-binding, summaries of policy, but with underlying policies as complex as needed to comprehensively address the issues. I further believe that we need to reconsider the notion that the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule.

Except for the simplest of issues, simple policies are vague policies. As it is, I say a little prayer of thanks every day to FSM for the fact that the notion that the assertion in the Fifth Pillar that "the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule" is observed more in the breach than in the observance. (And if you ever want a headache, try to figure out just how "the spirit of the rule" should be determined. Wikipedia:POLICY#Content says that policies are supposed to be, and therefore presumably are, statements of the spirit of the rule. That leads to the circular reasoning that, per WP:FIVE, it's not the letter but the spirit of the rule which is to be observed, but per Wikipedia:POLICY the spirit of the rule is what is set out in the letter of the rule.) Here in the US there have been several attempts to enforce and/or encourage simple legal writing, to avoid the maze of defined terms, use of terms or phrases of recognized legal meaning which are meaningless or misleading in plain English, and terms such as "aforesaid," "above referenced," and the like. All have fallen flat. Laymen would like to attribute that to lawyers protecting their turf or intentionally obfuscating meaning, but the truth is that lawyers write that way for precision of meaning without excess verbosity. I'm often asked by a client to keep a document both simple and brief and, while that is occasionally possible, my most frequent response is that I can give them one or the other but not both if they want their interests fully protected by the document.

If Wikipedia were, as originally idealized, a place of happy, if rigorous, collegiality, responsibility, and respectful editing, then perhaps simple policies and concomitant appeals to the spirits of those rules would work. If Wikipedia has ever actually met that ideal, it's not that now, and I fear that a return to simple policies and rules could doom it or turn it into a far worse battleground than it is today. What do you think? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

While I do agree that there are some policies that can benefit from a certain amount of simplification, simplifying all or most of them is contrary to the very nature of said policies. As Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines already says, policies and guidelines serve "to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia." With every step of making a rule more vague, it also makes this goal harder to achieve. There is a reason why any established legal system in the world has a huge amount of formal laws (e.g. German law) and/or case law (e.g. American law) that serve to pre-settle and pre-interpret almost any kind of dispute even before the dispute arises. Wikipedia might be an online project but it's still edited by human beings and we have so far failed to live in an organized society without detailed rules of almost every kind, so there is no reason to assume that Wikipedia should follow different rules than the "real world" does.
I don't think though that "simplifying policy and instructions" in the Foundation's approach refers to the policies themselves. There is no point in removing dozens of finely tuned policies that served us well for years just because they are complicated. Instead, I think, especially since "policy" and "instructions" are mentioned in the same sentence, that it refers to exactly what you mentioned above, i.e. that new editors should not have to familiarize themselves with dozens of policies but can find them summarized easily for quick access. If they then have a problem later that is not covered in such summaries, the "real" policies are still there to solve it. WP:5P already does this for the "basic laws" (i.e. the "constitution" of Wikipedia) but it would be useful to have similar pages for all the other major "laws". A "quick and easy overview of deletion" for example.
As for the spirit trumping the letter of the rule, I think that's fine, considering that it's main reason for existing is to prevent wikilawyering in cases where the letter of the policy requires a different outcome than the policy intended. In Germany, the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch has a rule called "Treu und Glauben". I'm sure there is a similar rule in the American law but I don't know the equivalent. Basically, it's the rule that disallows things like "wikt:venire contra factum proprium" (acting against prior conduct in a malicious manner) and "dolo agit" (demand something that you have to give back immediately).
And now I have to go to bed, I got the first regular test tomorrow. I feel valued that you asked my opinion, especially since I am but a learner still. :-) Regards SoWhy 21:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Unless I'm sorely mistaken, Treu und Glauben would be our good old Good faith, no? MLauba (Talk) 22:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you are correct. I think it's valid to say that IAR and "spirit before letter" are to Wikipedia "law" what "good faith" is to Canon law. Regards SoWhy 13:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
First, not to get off into an extended technical legal discussion, but let me just note that while American does require good faith in many contexts there are also many in which it does not, adopting more of a caveat emptor stance. That's of no importance for purposes of this discussion about Wikipedia policy, but I thought you might want to know. Second, good luck on your exams. I've seen enough of your work here to have confidence in your ability as a brother at the bar. Third, and to the points of the prior discussion, I do hope you're right about the Foundation not focusing on the policies themselves. If that's the case then it's summaries and introductions to those policies which they plan to simplify. I wish them luck on that, but if they can do it they're better men than I am, Gunga Din. When I'm new page patrolling I have a canned response which I give to newcomers who I think might really intend to try to contribute to Wikipedia. Part of that response says, "I've tried several times to write a better introduction to editing than can be found at the Article Wizard and Your First Article and I can't. Don't be tempted to skip past sections of either one, they're full of solid gold information." That's not mere verbiage; I've tried and I can't. We'll see where the Foundation goes and keep our fingers crossed. As for spirit vs. letter, I agree with your analysis but I fear for the possible consequences of it and remain glad that we rarely see it asserted as an argument to contravene the letter of policy. (Assertions of IAR are more common and more easily dealt with since once anyone objects to the IAR proposition a local exception to policy has to be established by consensus.) The spirit of a policy, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder and, like anything seen through an eye, the point of view can color what is seen. And, again, a mostly-rhetorical question: How can an insistence on following the letter of policy violate the spirit of the policy since, according to WP:POLICY the policy must be limited to a statement of the spirit of the policy. Finally, let me make a short, but long-pent-up rant about the term "wikilawyer." I truly dislike that term and am more than a little insulted by it to the degree that it furthers the stereotype of lawyers. Because I heavily focus on assertions of policy in dealing with things here, I try to do so in a way that is of benefit to the encyclopedia (or at least, and this goes to the eye of the beholder issue, above, in a way that I believe to be of benefit to the encyclopedia [which is to some extent what got me in trouble in my RFA]) and thereby try to give wikilawyering a good name. Much like the recent discussion over the continued use of the term "meatpuppetry," I fear that it's so embedded into WP culture that trying to end its use would require coercive measures beyond what the community would be willing to do, but I still grit my teeth every time I hear it or feel compelled, Jimbo help me, to use it. Thank you (and you, MLauba) for your comments and response, and the honor is mine. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Another book

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Might we have your needed and neutral input here ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeWoodzing (talk • contribs)

I'd like to help but I'm unsure as to what input I could offer in this particular case. If it's a question of whether the subject is notable, Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard is probably your best bet to discuss this question. Regards SoWhy 17:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

More Thanks for More Help :)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for help me also about dark links. I have a lot to learn… ;)--EnekoGotzon (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

CSD A7

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for letting me know about my mis-read of CSD A7. Both of the tags presented were tagged because while the article claimed importance, it was not supported. Re-reading the criterion, supporting the claim is not necessary. Thanks again for letting me know. N419BH 22:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. You are welcome of course, although I am sorry that it probably ruined your RFA attempt. Apart from that, you seem to be a good editor, so if the RFA fails and if you can address the concerns raised by those opposing you, another attempt in a few months should be successful. :-) Regards SoWhy 09:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cody Lane

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The Cody Lane article has been page protected so I couldn't move it there. The creator tried to bypass the page protection by putting it under her alleged real name which is not properly sourced. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I see. For the next such time, consider requesting unsalting at WP:RFPP, using WP:RM or using {{adminhelp}} to ask an admin to do the move instead. Regards SoWhy 08:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
You moved the article but that is her real name, she appears with that name and picture at the juvenile penitentiary where she is currently serving time a picture of her is provided, she is the same individual in her MySpace page. I sourced it...do you ever take into account the sources given when an article is created?? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
None of those sources were reliable. If you can provide a reliable source (i.e. a newspaper article, a book, a website with journalistic standards of research etc.) to verify this, you can argue to move it back. I did check the sources you provided but neither a blog, nor a forum, nor MySpace, nor IAFD are reliable sources. And the Detention Center webpage only says that someone called "Carla Rushing" is in detention, not that that's the real name of "Cody Lane" (and it's not reliable anyway). Regards SoWhy 16:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
 
Hello, SoWhy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

NW (Talk) 02:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

From me also. sonia♫ 08:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  Done. I feel very loved right now   Regards SoWhy 16:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was just going through Recent changes, and something from over a year ago (I guess when I got rollback) occurred to me: at some point I realized that "undo" really always calls for an edit summary (unless it's clear vandalism, in which case I often, though not always, use the "rollback vandalism" option). I think I've been pretty consistent with that, and use the "rollback" function which automatically prompts a summary quite a bit. At any rate, thanks for your comment; I elaborated a little bit at RfA, though I don't want to say too much there, lest you'd feel like I was badgering you. All the best, Drmies (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You are not badgering at all, I actually appreciate your honest and thoughtful post here and reply at the RFA. I understand where you are coming from but I think even short edit summaries like "ce" (better: "copy-editing") are helpful because even if you created the article, there are a number of different reasons why you could have made said minor edit. I myself often forgot to do so for minor edits in the past, so I enabled the option in the preferences to remind me. Regards SoWhy 16:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

James Cawley article

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi SoWhy, recently, you removed the image in the James Cawley article. What do you see as the acceptable attributions/fair-use/copyright types to reverse the removal of the image? As it's a production image from our production, I am authorized to address this issue and can change the copyright status/rationale of the image. Best, Robert Mauro, Co-Executive Producer, Star Trek Phase 2. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

One other thing in note of this. Presuming there's a suitable copyright that can be used, I'd have no problems changing that status for the image, but I would absolutely prefer not to change the article personally, as I do my best to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interests. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. Per our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, images cannot be used under a claim of "fair use" if a free equivalent can be created (which is almost always the case with living people), which is the reason I removed it from the article. As such, it can be readded, if the image uses a license that is compatible (such as a Creative Commons license that allows commercial use and modifications). If you can release the image under such a license, I would ask you to upload it to Wikimedia Commons using the uploaded wizard they provide which will guide you through the process. Commons:Licensing gives you an overview as to what licenses can be used there and which not. During the upload of the file, please add the template {{OTRS pending}} to the description page and send a mail to [90] including the name of the file or its URL, confirming that it's indeed released as a free image. As soon as you uploaded the file and it has been verified by the OTRS team, you can re-add it to the page yourself or contact me and I will re-add it for you. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Regards SoWhy 17:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Much thanks. I'll look into going through this after our next shoot, as it seems it will be something that will take a little time to ensure I get it correct. Though, I will note this much, no free equivalent of this nature could be created (as no one is permitted to photograph at our shoots except set photographers and our cameraman, who sign their rights over to the production). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
You misunderstand "no free alternative can be created". The image is for Mr. Cawley's article, not for the one about the series, so the free alternative refers to making a picture of Mr. Cawley at all, not of him in character (a picture of him in "real life" is probably better than one in character anyway). Since it's quite possible to take a photograph of Mr. Cawley, a non-free image cannot not be used to portray him in his article. So you don't have to wait until a shoot, you could just take a picture of him the next time you see him and upload that one. Which one you use if your choice of course. Regards SoWhy 18:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. My misunderstanding was based on assuming the relevant need for an image associated with part of what makes the article notable, which in retrospect, was silly of me. Thanks again, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would like your critique

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A few minutes ago I restored A7 speedy tags onto two articles, both by the same creator, which I had placed earlier in the day. They were removed by an editor with only four edits whose first two edits were to remove those tags. My edit summary in both cases was "Speedy deletion templates may only be removed by sysops or experienced editors; please also see WP:PUPPET". (I also filed an SPI report.) There seems to be some sentiment that any editor other than the page creator can remove a speedy nom. Did I overstep the mark in restoring the speedy templates? Best regards (and how did you do on your exams?), TransporterMan (TALK) 19:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Usually, it's correct that anyone but the creator can remove the tags, so it was incorrect in that regard. On the other hand, if there is reasonable assumption that the user removing the tags is a sock of the page creator, then they are not allowed to remove the tag themselves, no matter which account they use. So while your edit summary was in fact incorrect, the readdition could have been correct if the removal was by the creator using another account. PS: Thanks for asking, it went well enough, I got my "diploma" (unfortunately, I didn't get a "Diplom" though) and I am now working as a Referendar. Regards SoWhy 19:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thanks for the review. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Faithful Friend Yellow Lab T Shirt

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Do you still believe that this article is not an advertisement, it was speedy deleted 4 times the editor will just keep adding the content back, they have also uploaded again the copyrighted images to commons, that I had speedy deleted last night, claiming it is their own work. Mo ainm~Talk 09:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not in the form I left it in, which would be required for WP:G11 (i.e. that nothing was salvageable). I agree that the editor adding such content back is wrong but unfortunately "stubborn creator" is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. I will put it up for AFD. Regards SoWhy 09:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
That's cool but I see the AfD tag has already been removed twice :( Mo ainm~Talk 10:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, "sticky" AFD tags have not been invented yet (although they were proposed). For now, we can just revert those socks. I would suggest you report them to WP:SPI as well to get them blocked (I'd block them myself but with nominating the article for deletion, I became WP:INVOLVED). Regards SoWhy 11:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

regarding your revert at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

As you say, those are for "deletion discussions"...and so is "Speedy delete".  I took a sample of one, WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 1, and found 14 speedy delete's.  Have I made my point?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

There is some confusion, I will admit to it. When people !vote "speedy delete" in an AFD, they usually mean "it's so clear that this should be deleted, we don't need to discuss 7 days". They are practically !voting to WP:SNOW close the debate early. If an AFD is closed as "speedy delete", then it means that an admin thinks that the subject already met a criterion for speedy deletion, so that AFD was not necessary. But speedy deletion as a policy is separate from the !vote "speedy delete" at AFD. The former is, as the page says, a set of narrow criteria when admins can decide to delete without a discussion, the latter is just a emphasis in such a discussion. As such, a speedy deletion request will never have a "procedural" nor a "SNOW" close because only discussions are closed. Hence the separate policy on speedy deletion has nothing to do with those kinds of closes, which means that linking them will most likely confuse people instead of helping them. I hope I managed to explain it, if not, please ask. Regards SoWhy 21:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
By your theory (although I didn't see any examples of this on WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 1) people are using speedy delete when they meant WP:SNOW.  As per the MOS:LAYOUT guideline, the "See also" section is for "related articles".  So if they checked WP:Speedy delete before posting at the AfD, they could use the "See also" to learn about WP:SNOW.  Also note the hat note for this page that shows that WP:SPEEDY redirects to this page, and that WP:Speedy keep is already linked.  Procedural closure and WP:SNOW are both related to Speedy delete, as is Speedy keep.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
There are two cases in which people use "speedy delete" as a !vote at AFD: 1.) The nominated article meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion and thus they think it should be deleted without discussion. In this case, a deletion will not be the result of the discussion but based on the separate policy Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. 2.) They think the subject should meet a criterion for speedy deletion but it doesn't, so they are practically emphasizing that the discussion is a waste of time. In this case, a premature close of the discussion as "delete" will not be "speedy" but "SNOW". If they checked WP:Speedy delete before posting at AFD, they will notice long before reading the "see also" section that this is not applicable in this case. The first sentences already tell them that CSD bypass[es] deletion discussions" and that they "cover only the cases specified in the rules below". The hat note is not for related articles but to disambiguate the WP:SPEEDY redirect since a reasonable editor could expect it to redirect to "speedy keep" just as well. Pages linked to in hatnotes do not have to be related to the subject of the page they are placed on, so that comparison is misleading. They usually only share the same title or a redirect with the page the hatnote is placed on. You will notice that Wikipedia:Speedy keep is not linked from the "See also" section for the same reasons. Regards SoWhy 09:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

TB

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, SoWhy. You have new messages at OlYeller21's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OlYellerTalktome 21:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: wiki entry /Seider's_Springs

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry for all the confusion. I am the author of the source content with which there are alleged copyright violations. I am working to make this Wikipedia entry fully compliant. Many thanks for your time and helpful advice. Brykerwoods (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Seider's Springs

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Just an FYI, please see User talk:Brykerwoods, I have advised the user to contact WP:OTRS to give permission for material for which he has copyright over. Hope you are doing well, -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I just left them the general guide links. I'm fine, thanks for asking. Hope you are doing well as well. Regards SoWhy 14:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added the following statement to the web page used as source information for this Wikipedia article “The text of this web page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License.” see http://www.txinfo.com/brykerwoods/Parks/index.html Although I am the author, the material is not copyrighted and the content is to be considered that of the public domain. I want to make absolutely certain my Wikipedia article submission complies with copyright standards/requirements. Have I made the necessary changes required for the republishing of this Wikipedia article? Please direct me to a proper authority if such question is out of scope for your responsibilities. Many thanks! Brykerwoods (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Patd4.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A tag has been placed on File:Patd4.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Retitled image, All incoming links updated

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected AfDs

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Please see User talk:Antiuser#Could use some advice here.... Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: Timeduty.com - release so I can create a new (hopefully correct one)

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I have quite a while ago created a page with the title 'Timeduty' that was deleted due to some correct reasons. I want to try again, but now I cannot find a 'Create' page button (I think the page is deleted and protected). Is this something you can help me with? Best Regards YallaSvenne (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Yes, the deletion log shows that the page has been protected. You had best create a draft in your userspace - see Help:Userspace draft for how to do that - and then ask Oscarthecat (talk), who protected it, for permission to post it. Note that (a) you should not make promotional claims like "easy to use" and "ideal for small companies", and (b) a reference to its own website is not enough, Wikipedia is not a list of every product that exists, to have an article you will have to demonstrate notability by showing references to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The test is, have people independent of Timeduty thought it important enough to write substantial comment about? JohnCD (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Koranteng-Pipim

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there. I think the protection is a good idea. The disruption appears to be coming from a few IPs. I have been editing a few of these SDA articles for a while now and I suspect that they are socks/meats and have filed a SPI [91] against one of them [92]. However the CU needs a confirmed account to work in this case. May I suggest that you change the protection to non-confirmed users. If they come back we'll be able to run CU and determine the sock/meat issue once and for all. Lionel (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Unfortunately, as well as socks, there was a huge amount of revert-warring and edit-warring, including autoconfirmed users, so reducing the protection to semi at this time will reward autoconfirmed edit-warriors. See this report at BLP/N for details. If you are able to sort through those problems, feel free to request un- or semi-protection at WP:RFPP. I will have to leave soon, so I cannot do it myself. Regards SoWhy 08:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wanderlust

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

It doesn't look to me like the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanderlust (software) supports a redirect from Wanderlust (software) to Emacs. That certainly wasn't what my own WP:!VOTE to delete meant. More to the point, that redirect makes no sense at all: The only mention of Wanderlust on the Emacs page is a redirect back to itself: "Wanderlust, yet another full-featured email and news client". I think the right answer was delete, not redirect, and I think that's what the discussion actually supported. Msnicki (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You will notice that I chose to "delete and redirect", not "redirect". The outcome of the discussion was to delete, which is why the article was deleted. But after the deletion, it made sense to recreate the now-deleted by as a redirect considering the huge amount of incoming links. If you remove the wikilink to it from the Emacs page, which I did now, readers can find some information about it there, even if it's not much. See Metil's !vote at the AFD. If all mentions of Wanderlust are removed from that article and someone removes all the links to it, then it might make sense to delete the redirect again but until then, redirects are cheap and this solution is better than just deleting. Regards SoWhy 18:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your quick response. Kind regards, Msnicki (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Francisco José Cox

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi,

the problem is that content of the article was deleted. I restored the content of the article and put the delete tag again. I think that is the right way. Otherway, how can the others know what is being critized?. Now I see that you deleted the delete-tag. Why?. I don't know. I hope you know what you are doing. Best regrads, --Keysanger 08:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

because of the nature of WP:G10 , blanking the content is the correct way. I declined to delete it, because it did not meet those requirements. Regards SWM (SoWhy[on]Mobile) 11:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 
Hello, SoWhy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Lock Page NOW!

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If you are on, please lock UFC 132 because of excessive vandalism! Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but at 2 in the morning, I'm mostly asleep or at least trying to sleep, so I didn't see your message until now. Regards SoWhy 09:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but...

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for answering my question, but it means you have to block me, Thecheesykid and Nightfall87 for edit warring on Novak Djokovic yesterday. Not edit warring with each other, but edit warring with people who kept inserting incorrect information. The revision history is pretty clear that all three of us reverted to the correct version more than three times. Absconded Northerner (talk) 07:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have had to yesterday but if I did so now, it would violate the spirit of the blocking policy, especially Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Blocks should not be punitive. Blocks are means to stop people currently disrupting the project or people who are very likely to disrupt again if not blocked. Since you did not edit-war again after your request for clarification, I will assume good faith that you did not mean to disrupt at all, so there is no reason for me to block you. Same applies to Thecheesykid and Nightfall87, who both did not edit that way again. I do assume though that you now are aware that such editing will not be tolerated though and that you won't edit-war like this again. In future, please request protection as soon as you notice such tendencies instead. I will leave the other two users a note to this post. Regards SoWhy 12:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I asked for protection at 12:19 and it took nearly two and a half hours for the request to be actioned. Not only that, but the semi-protection turned out not to be sufficient, as plenty of autoconfirmed users added the same incorrect information later on. Asking for full protection ran the risk of there being a very good chance that the incorrect version was protected.
In other words, this policy is deeply flawed if it means that unambiguously correct information cannot be inserted into articles. Absconded Northerner (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The policy is not flawed, it just has a different goal in mind. The basis for all Wikipedia entries is consensus and consensus is achieved through discussion. As such, showing an unwillingness to discuss an issue by edit-warring instead disrupts this process which is why WP:3RR does not care about "right" or "wrong", just about "good faith" or "disruptive". As such, the risk that "false" information stays in the article for a while is acceptable, since we have templates to alert readers about this. If you disagree with the policy, you can try to change it, but I doubt it will work. What won't work is to ignore it though. As for protection, while full protection always carries the risk of the "wrong" version to be protected, Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes does contain a way to avoid this, i.e. reverting back to the state before the edit-warring. Remember, if you request protection, it should not be because you want "your" version to be stable but because you want to stop disruptions of the article by anyone. Regards SoWhy 13:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say "my" version. I'm talking about a correct and consistent version. The changes being reverted often left the article saying one thing in one place and a different thing in another place; furthermore the changed text was contradicted by the source on the article. When I asked my question I assumed the omission of this exception was a mistake that would be added when I pointed it out.
If a policy doesn't have an exception to allow incorrect information to be removed, it's flawed and there's no question about it. Since support for the flaw is evidently ingrained in administrative minds, I won't bother arguing any further, however. I'm honestly becoming less and less impressed with this site as I find out more about it. Absconded Northerner (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there are often people who will argue in good faith that the version you see as "correct and consistent" is actually "incorrect" and/or "inconsistent". The policy of 3RR was created to end edit-warring now and then discuss/clarify which version is correct. It was not created to judge the content. If you believe this to be a wrong approach, you are free to request a change of the policy, for example at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).
I'm sorry if you become disillusioned with Wikipedia but you seem to think that administrators are something like "moderators" on other pages. We are not. Administrators are (as the symbol shows) like janitors, we act in purely technical manner, that's why the policy only allows us to stop the edit-warring but not to make a judgment call which version is "correct". When not using the tools as the policy allows, admins are editors like everyone else and which version they perceive to be "correct" or "incorrect" is irrelevant. Furthermore, an administrator who uses the tools to protect a version they think is correct, acts abusively. Regards SoWhy 13:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Your Introduction

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey! Good Job, you answered on of my questions earlier, and so I was reading more about you. I noticed you are from germany, thats slick, I just thought I would mention that I think You might have a grammarical error on your "about me section". On the twelfth line when you say: 'I will never let them influence my editing in any way (and so far people told me I have).' What you are intending to say is that people have told you that you have excelled at remaining neutral. What you actually say is that people have told you that you let you bias affect your edits. Rewording this might be a good choice, as you seem to take, and rightly so, great pride in your personal page. :) Happy fourth of July Majestic Pyre (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks you very much for pointing that out to me, I do strive to live and learn and so it's just great (honestly!) if people tell me about such things. :-) I rephrased it a bit, I hope it's not ambiguous anymore. Please feel free to tell me if you believe otherwise. Regards SoWhy 19:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

re this...

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

apologies. I thought the notice was to generate discussion. I misunderstood the intent. Please let me know when and where it's proper to post thoughts on this. Thanks SoWhy, and I appreciate all the hard work you're putting into this. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  13:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No apologies necessary, I realize that my request was ambiguous. The RFC(s) are the place to discuss these thoughts once they start. Until then, I would really appreciate your help in finishing those RFCs, so that we can start the discussion soon. Regards SoWhy 13:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I did post one item on a talk page, and I'd be happy to read in more detail this evening. Rather than concentrate on the "concept" of them, I'll look more with an eye on the wording. (now that I have a better idea of what's going on). I'm hardly the worlds greatest writer, but I'm more than happy to try to help. ;) — Ched :  ?  13:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

RfB

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Changing the Requests for Bureaucratship promotion threshold? was closed as

While there seems to be substantial consensus in favor of lowering the bar (about 75% in favor of it, for those who want a number), there is no consensus as to where to place the bar. To determine the new location of the bar, another discussion will need to be held, likely with some sort of voting (or !voting, for people who hate voting).

As an editor who has started two bureaucrat RfCs, would you start a discussion about where to place the bar? Because of the negative comments about my involvement at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Outcome?, it's best for me not to start or participate in any such discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Second, are Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy still in the planning stages, or are they ready to be listed at T:CENT? Cunard (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I just came here to talk about the question of when the admin flag RfCs will go live. At the moment they are still "draft", but people can't seem to resist jumping into with support or opposition, so we should probably make them live soon. SoWhy, you initiated this, do you think they are ready? If so, I believe the main thing to do to active them would be to remove the "tlx" off the Rfctag template, and to put a signature at the end of the opening summaries so RFC bot will include them when it posts to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Regarding anything further on the RfB threshold, perhaps that should wait, since people's thinking on it may be influenced by the admin flag issue. --RL0919 (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
As for the "bar" issue, I think RL0919 is correct. Since that question is likely to be influenced by the two RFCs about the flag-removal (see Ched's comment on the draft RFC for example), I think we should postpone a discussion about the % needed to pass RFB until those RFCs are closed. People might think the bar for crats who can remove the bit should be higher than for crats that can't, for example. Also, since new RfBs are scarce (and as far as I know noone currently thinks of running), postponing that question would not be harmful.
As for the RfCs, I think they are as ready as they can be (since I don't know anything more to change) but I really would love to hear some further opinions before kicking them off. What do you think (both of you and all who read here)? Regards SoWhy 18:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thank you, RL0919 and SoWhy, for the feedback. I agree that discussion about where to place the RfB bar should be postoned.

SoWhy, the RfCs look well-organized. I like the idea of having two RfCs, one with a simple "Yes/No" question and a second that determines the scope. Cunard (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a wiki, so of course there's always another change coming, but both RfCs seem clear and to the point, and have been copyedited by multiple people. I think they are good to go. When you decide to "activate" them, I'm ready to help with posting notifications (T:CENT, etc.) as soon as you do so. --RL0919 (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, if you think so, I'll start it. Thanks for the input.   If you could advertise the RFCs at the relevant pages (WP:BN, WT:RFA, WP:VPR etc.), I would be grateful. I don't really know how to phrase a notification like that. I'll add them to CENT. Regards SoWhy 19:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to put a signature somewhere after the opening statements for these. RFC bot quotes the RfC down to the first signature, so without your sig it is quoting down into the Support sections. I tried to trim it, but the bot just puts it back. See here. --RL0919 (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I really am not used to RfCs evidently. I put the timestamp of the start of the RFC instead, since the bot looks for it as far as I can tell from the RFC page. Hopefully it works now. If not and you are still around, please try to fix it. I'm going to bed now (it's 12.42am here). Regards SoWhy 22:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A Little Help for Majestic Pyre (talk)

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! I am trying to do a couple different things, and I thought you might be able to help. First of all, how do I edit my signature. I read the help file but it only told me how not to edit my signature. Help! Secondly, is there a way to create a picture box that switches between the pictures it shows, like a picture box for a whole gallery. Sincerely, Majestic Pyre (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

As for your signature, you can set it in Special:Preferences (= "My preferences"). You can either customize the name only by adding it into the box or add a complete new signature including markup. In that case, you need to include all formatting and wikimarkup, such as [[ ]] to create internal links. Also, in order for it to work, you need to check the box "Treat the above as wiki markup.". Remember that your signature should contain a link to your userpage and/or user talk page. Once you click Save" it will be displayed in that area for you to check.
No, there is no such option as far as I know. If you want to add a gallery of pictures, there are several methods, outlined in Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Galleries. Regards SoWhy 21:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

tom hobson

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I attempted to jump from the Jorma Kaukonen page to a link to a page about Tom Hobson, but found that the page had been deleted, and your name attached to the deed. I would like to request that the page be reinstated. I have no knowledge of the specifics of why the page would be deleted -- I had nothing to do with its creation, and so have never seen it. I understand that if it was, for instance, plagiarized, there would be good cause to delete the page, but I simply wonder what the reason is. I notice that one reason cited as possible cause for such an action is that the subject was deemed unworthy. I assure you, this is not the case here, although it IS true that Tom is little known. THat is a sad fact that some of us would like to see change, hence my interest and excitement to find him on Wikipedia. ALthough commercial success eluded him, TOm was an important and accomplished musician in San Francisco from the 1960s until he left in the mid-1980s. Many recollections about him are gathered on the web site tomhobson.com. He recorded a major-label record with Jorma Kaukonen on RCA and worked with many others of that era. Jerry Garcia mentioned him in his book-length interview with the man who wrote "Greening of America," for instance. anyway, enough for now. I hope you get this. Feel free to contact me at (e-mail removed) if i can be of any assistance. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.246.174 (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. As the log entry says, it was deleted, because the user who created the page requested its deletion by removing the content again completely. That said, the page did not contain any real content about Mr. Hobson, especially no reasons to assume that he is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. If you want to recreate the page, feel free to do so. In that case, please read Wikipedia:Your first article first though so you know how to do it. In order to create the page, you can (and probably should) use the article wizard to do so. This will help you with your creation, especially regarding the requirements regarding notability and reliable sources. If you have further questions, do not hesitate to ask you. PS: I removed your email address so that spam bots won't find it. If you prefer to communicate via e-mail for any reason, you can send me an e-mail using the Wikipedia form once you registered an account using your e-mail address. Regards SoWhy 17:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You are invited to participate in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Peridon#The Red Elephant

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi SoWhy. Would you provide a third opinion at User talk:Peridon#The Red Elephant, where Peridon and I disagree about the application of A7 to The Red Elephant? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, although I don't know whether my opinion will be considered neutral. I tried to be as objective as possible though. Regards SoWhy 20:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Although your opinion may not be considered, I consider it to be well informed since you are a frequent observer and participant at discussions at WT:CSD and are experienced admin who patrols CAT:CSD. Cunard (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

My recall

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! I've been mulling over criteria for what I feel would be acceptable for recall and I'd like it to where only a select few editors I trust can ask for my recall. I'd like you to be one of those editors. I've outlined the process here. If there is any reason you would not like to be on this list, for example maybe you object to recall or perhaps you don't want to deal with the drama involved, could you please let me know?--v/r - TP 18:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. First of all, let me say that I'm honored that you trust me to be involved in this process. While I personally do not use Recall for myself, I will of course support your process, although I don't hope it will be necessary. Regards SoWhy 21:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

My editor review

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi SoWhy! Since you listed yourself on Wikipedia:Editor review/deletion edits review, I was wondering if you would be willing to review my deleted edits in my editor review. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I did a review of a random sample of taggings and posted it to the review. If you wish to have more pages reviewed, feel free to tell me. Regards SoWhy 20:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I was wondering how accurate I was, but the only confusing thing is I thought I had replaced the A7 speedy on The Living Fields with a PROD after noticing the future album release. My only question is on Alexander Robinson (Canadian football), I'm not certain why "Alexander Robinson 97" makes it an A1 and not an A3. Thanks again for the review! Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
As for The Living Fields, you did, but you specified in your edit summary that you did it because of the new information added after you tagged it A7 while my point was that at the time of the tagging it already failed A7 imho. As for the other one: "Alexander Robinson 97" is content. It might not make sense or anything but it's still something. The distinction usually goes as follows: If there is nothing in the article except links, categories, see-also sections etc., it's A3. If there is something at all but you cannot figure out what the article is about, it's A1. That's only a minor thing though, since A3 actually includes "rephrasing of the title" and one can easily argue that this was the case here. So don't worry about that one, I just thought I should include it for completeness sake. Regards SoWhy 08:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Titles and Categories

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I have a question. There is this category: "Category:Puerto Rico Soccer League Seasons". There are 4 articles, all starting with the year: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011. When the category sorts them, it sorts three articles under the number "2" and one article under the "P". How can I change the letter under which the article is sorted? Why is that? Thanks so much in advance.--Coquidragon (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This is done using the "magic word" {{DEFAULTSORT}}. Using {{DEFAULTSORT}}, you can specify which way the article is sorted in alphabetical order in the category without having the rename it first. To use it, just place {{DEFAULTSORT:Name of the page as it should be sorted}} anywhere on the page, usually at the bottom. Regards SoWhy 17:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you.--Coquidragon (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:July 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

Excuse me, but I was just stopping the edit war right now, so no need to worry. --AnyGuy (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Great to hear. I just left you the message in case you didn't know about the rule, so you wouldn't be surprised, if another admin blocked you for your reverts. If you feel strongly about that image btw, first provide us with proof that it is indeed a free image that can be used on Wikipedia. Unless you do so, it will be deleted soon. Regards SoWhy 14:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I only found the photo here, and I've checked the photo, and it doesn't give me a clear explanation if it is Copyrighted, or if it is free. I'll leave the decision to you. --AnyGuy (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
By default, assume that everything you find on the Internet is copyrighted and not licensed in a way that it can be used here. Amalthea 14:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, I noticed that. In U.S. law (which Wikipedia has to adhere to), a copyright notice is not required for a work to be protected by copyright (see our article Copyright#Obtaining_copyright). As such, copyright is automatically granted upon creation of the work (in this case the photograph) and has to be explicitly waived. So if you find an image somewhere which does not say whether its copyrighted or not, the assumption is always that it is and you need to prove otherwise for it to be used. In this case, such proof was not provided, which is why we cannot use it on Wikipedia. See WP:NFCC#1 as to why fair use of the image is not allowed as well. You can try to ask the guy who uploaded it on Wikia where its from but I'm pretty sure he uploaded it without permission as well. Imho, your best bet would be to contact the subject (i.e. Mr. Johnson) himself and ask him to publicly release an image of himself under a compatible license. See Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:Image use policy. Regards SoWhy 14:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, well I guess the photo should be deleted. I think I'm gonna take a break from uploading images for a while. --AnyGuy (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll interpret that as a request that you want it deleted and will do so. Don't be disheartened by this episode though. Yes, images are a complicated area of Wikipedia but if you read the pages I linked to above, I'm sure you will get the hang of it pretty quickly. If you need any help, do not hesitate to ask me. :-) Regards SoWhy 15:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
In the meantime, I'm gonna do something I know how to do, which is flagging pages for deletion. I've been reading the Criteria for speedy deletion, and I think I know what to do. BTW, thanks for the links! :)--AnyGuy (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Just remember: CSD is sometimes as much as a minefield as images are. I wrote some essays on this area (WP:10CSD and WP:A7M) that might be helpful (remember to read WP:WIHSD as well) but the most important rule for both is: Interpret the policy as strict as possible and when in doubt, don't tag/upload. Also, in general editing, but especially when tagging pages for speedy deletion, please remember to use edit summaries that allow others to understand what and why you made a certain edit. Regards SoWhy 15:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. I've read them, and I think I got it. But just to be sure, check one of the pages I have flagged. It is, Free Internet eXchange Oslo. Please note that the creator made some extra edits after I flagged it. --AnyGuy (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Commandment #5 of speedy deletion: G4 only applies when it was previously deleted as a result of a deletion discussion (such as WP:AFD for articles). This article was speedy deleted before and thus G4 cannot be applied. If someone recreates a page previously speedy deleted, the original criterion might apply again (e.g. A7), but in this case the previous deletion was in error already since the previous admin mis-applied A7. Regards SoWhy 17:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me. --AnyGuy (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For helping out with my photo problem. AnyGuy (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I think someone is vandalising

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

User:YouCute is posting hoaxes of America heading into WWIII, and is not explaining if it is true (even though I'm 99% sure it isn't). Here are such pages. WEBSTER TARPLEY - PAKISTAN IS THE ROAD TO WW3 (1/6), Congress Vote On Declaration Of World War 3, China Issues Ultimatum to United States, President Obama and Hillary Clinton pay blood money to Pakistan in adherence to Sharia law. --AnyGuy (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, he got blocked. --AnyGuy (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Good to know. As a rule of thumb, I'm usually asleep after 22:00 UTC (which is midnight here in Germany), so if you leave me a message after 22:00 UTC, I usually will not see it until afternoon the next day. Regards SoWhy 12:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Templating

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Regarding this, perhaps it would have been better not to use the template (which can easily come off as patronising), but instead to have left a quick note? Just something to consider for the future. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I never thought that this specific template could be considered patronizing, since it clearly states that it might be used in different situations and the part that could be considered patronizing could never apply to all situations (like here where I left it because of what I considered insufficient warnings). That said, now I know better and I will alter my behavior accordingly. Nonetheless, thanks for taking the time to tell me. In this case I have drawn that conclusion myself before your message but there are cases where I don't and I need people like you who are willing to take some time to write me. :-) Regards SoWhy 19:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, then I hope that I didn't come off as patronising! :) Thanks for your considered response. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry, I never consider any advice as patronizing, that's not my style. Also, that would just mean that people would stop giving me advice and that wouldn't be in anyone's interest, especially not mine. ;-) Regards SoWhy 19:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Jenks. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 22:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Advice needed

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Can't think of a better way to get some fresh air into our short interaction, than to turn to you for some enlightenment. Have a look at this. Normal? Purpose? MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 22:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone who heard about using templates for signatures but instead uses templates for parts of their signature (see the source here). I would suggest you ask them what they are trying to accomplish with those edits and possibly help them to achieve it in some easier fashion. I'd do it myself but I really really have to go to bed now, so I can't stay awake to await their response. Hope that helps, if not, please clarify. Regards SoWhy 22:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Removed all templates in my signature, reworked it from scratch. Txiиg$ Tx/-\t VV!ll +8I+E 06:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 
Hello, SoWhy. You have new messages at Things That Will Bite's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Txiиg$ Tx/-\t VV!ll +8I+E 06:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Leslie Winkle.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Leslie Winkle.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

VG Peer Review retired

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, as per this discussion, the VG peer review department is being retired in favor of the general peer review process. I'm alerting you as you have a currently open VG peer review, though it hasn't received any messages in a month, and it will be closed momentarily. If you have any questions or concerns, please raise them at the VG project talk page. --PresN 18:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for Unprotection

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I would like the article Global city unprotected. Why was the article semi-protected? Can you get the article unprotected? Thank you.KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Back in 2008 (wow, that was a long time ago, wasn't it?) the article was a magnet for vandalism by IPs whenever it was unprotected. That said, it is three years since then, so I removed the protection for now. If it turns out that vandalism starts again, please re-request protection. Regards SoWhy 18:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Del Rev

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear SoWhy,

This is regarding an {{admin help}} request you answered at my talk page regarding the Sigs of living people. Could you please list all files for Del Rev, as you said you would be glad to help if I dropped you a line.

Regards,

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avenue X at Cicero (talk • contribs)

Hi there. Sure, no problem. I listed them at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 2. As I do not have an opinion about it, please head there and provide a reason for your request. Also, please remember to sign on talk pages - while "Tom" is more personal, it makes it much harder to identify to identify who left a comment. Regards SoWhy 13:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Past discussions leading to schools being exempt from A7.
  2. ^ It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article falls below the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SoWhy/Archive_22&oldid=1147959702"