User talk:SouthernNights/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Chemically Imbalanced Comedy

I am not that computer savy and was really trying to work on my page for the past few days. I don't understand why my theater commpanies accomplishments don't meet your needs to be worthy of this site? Your online example says if someone won an award it makes them notable. We have won many awards (if you consider being accepted into comedy festivals all around the US and Canada awards) and we have been written and reviewd in every major paper in Chicago (including the Tribune, Suntimes, Reader, TimeOut). Our Theater has a major influnce on Chicago Talent as well as helping foster talent across the country with our annual comedy festival.

I am just not sure what more we can do to become worthy of your site. Please contact if you have a moment and let me know. I was trying to follow your rules and update with more and more info but I have a young 2 year old daughter who takes my attention from the computer often.

Thanks for you time on this matter. Angela McMahon cicomedy@hotmail.com

Robin Robinson

Why did you delete the informative Robin Robinson article that included true facts and relevant information about this noteworthy African American journalist?

Actually, I'm quite familiar with Robin Robinson, having once heard her speak. However, the article you created was a thinly veiled attack article which included unfounded rumours about her. As such it was deleted as an attack page. Perhaps someone an editor will write a real article about her instead of an attack page.--SouthernNights 14:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding Stylehive

You just deleted a post regarding the Stylehive, which we posted. Wondering what we did wrong? We wrote it to be as factual and informative as possible, tried to follow all the conventions. You mentioned some sort of copyright violation which is not correct, and then reference a blog post about us that has nothing to do with that. What is the deal? Sincerely, Michael Carrier CEO www.Stylhive.com

=(

Honestly, I just didn't realize the level of vitriol that had occurred on the page. I certainly would've backed you up against that sort of behavior. I just saw the ping-ponging on this link, looked at the link itself, wasn't sure whether I agreed with its inclusion or not, and figured I'd pop in to ask about it. At any rate, it's as much my fault for not realizing the backdrop against which this had occurred. No hard feelings on my end, really, and hope you feel the same. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 01:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a note

I saw you created Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. From my user page, you can see I am interested in the matter. Although I am not positive this wouldn't fall under NOT being a memorial. This may be questioned later. Just something to keep in mind. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:"I also think that most people will support the page since we'll all one day be candidates for a mention that page." Well, not all of us!!!! Mahahahahaha! But seriously, thanks again. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Bath School disaster

Thanks for your remarks. Jtmichcock 02:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciated you support. The current article has got a couple nasty notes, I noticed. Jtmichcock 16:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

!!!

Not sure which edits you are referring to, but thanks a lot!  :)

I still bump into dcv now and then, she's toned it down quite a bit (thankfully) and is still actively editing.

Take care and hope things are going well in Alabama or wherever you're located these days.

Justforasecond 19:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Elizabethan Theatre

Greetings! Since you are one of the three people who post frequently on the William Shakespeare talk page, I thought I would include you in this.

If you haven't noticed, I've been trying to push WikiProject Theatre a bit. Someone on the talk page noted that the project is really very large and I agree. So in order to break up some of the work and concentrate it, I have decided to break up WikiProject Theatre into a series of smaller theatre projects. The first of these is WikiProject Elizbethan theatre. This project, spanning the 84 years between the beginning of Elizabeth I's reign to 1642 when the Puritans closed the theatres, covers such names as Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe and Ben Jonson. It aims to expand Wikipedia's coverage of the Elizabethan theatre as well as bringing the articles up to a high level of quality (close to or attaining FA status).

This project has not actually been launched as an official project yet, but the 2 main pages have been created on subpages of WikiProject Theatre and can be viewed here. I would like to get some feedback and suggestions before I officially launch the project. Please feel free to become a member of the project if you'd like. Please leave any messages regarding this here and I will watch your page. Thanks! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Confirmation that User:Kwantus passed away

Hi - thanks for taking on this project documenting wikipedians that have passed on.

Hume was an old friend. Here is a link to google's cache of his obit.

Hume was struck by a massive heart attack when he was within hours of completing a restoration project on his church's carillon, which he had worked on for over a decade.

He was one of the most fascinating and unusual people I've ever met, and a singularly gifted programmer, pipe organist, mathematician, electrician, plumber, carpenter, historian and genealogist. He had no use for material posessions and never really figured out how to deal with the world outside his home.

--RobHutten 13:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Roitr and his sockpuppets

Nixer is sick by "socksomania". If you have no incontestable proofs that I it Roitr and only you follow imagination by Nixer, that unblock me please. (This was signed by hand as User:Sergeybakh but in fact the history shows an edit by 88.153.39.202 (talk • contribs) · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked that new IP number but obviously the sockpuppet will keep getting through.--SouthernNights 16:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Now he continues vandalism as User:Arthurus --Nixer 18:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Look here [1]. He recreated the deleted article under a new name.--Nixer 19:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help containing this vandal. It seems that today he was back with a furious vengenance as he is starting to realize that this site is sick of him and measures are in effect to track and block on site. By my count, 4 new sockpuppets today, a rash of recreating previously deleted articles, along with sockpuppetvandalism of user pages and the main Roitr vandal page. Anyway, could you please take a look at User:Duduvak. He is SWEARING that is in no way connected to Roitr. I dont believe him for a second, but thought I would let another admin take a look. Thanks! -Husnock 21:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Glad to help.--SouthernNights 21:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with thanks. But Roitr continues his revert-war. Can you please semi-protect these articles: Naval officer ranks, Air force officer ranks, Generalissimo as they were vandalized again by an anon sockpuppet of Roitr (88.153.173.243). He also made some changes in articles on figure skating, and these changes also should be revisited by a user, who has knowledge of these matters.--Nixer 06:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection

To deal with the Shakespeare article first: there was support on the talk page for permanent (!) semiprotection because of some moderate-to-high vandalism. There was also talk of leaving it protected for protracted periods, e.g. until June. This tends to happen with articles that editors are fond of, but part of allowing this project to function is a trust in the 'wikiprocess' and any level of protection is a breach of that trust. If people don't want to handle the vandalism, they should probably be writing on paper instead. It had been several days of semiprotection followed quickly by several more days of semiprotection and so I decided that we should give the article time to breathe, and prove that the sky does not fall if the article is unprotected. I came across it as part of my regular clean-outs of CAT:SEMI; I seem to be the only admin who ever does this, and the number of protected articles rises endlessly because few admins bother to release their protections. I have decided some time ago to work on the principle that a protection older than, say, 24 hours is forgotten absent evidence to the contrary. Most vandals get bored in 24 hours. They're only bored geeks (like the rest of us) and they don't usually have an attention span of days and weeks. If they do, they generally get banned insted. So when I find an article protected for more than a few days, I lift the protection without consultation. I figure if admins don't want me to do it, they'd remember to do it themselves.

I've only very recently started dropping messages to certain admins. I've left notes with admins who have forgotten about very lengthy semiprotections and they are only to tell that I already have lifted it, rather than to discuss the matter with them. I've left the occasional one with a new admin, just to give them a poke while they're still 'fresh'. So you're among the vast bulk of admins whose protections I have lifted without discussion. I don't think there is much to discuss over whether a vandal has gone or not: the only way to find out is to unprotect and keep unprotecting. But I'm sorry if you felt I was being rude: that was not my intention at all. It's just that, with (as this evening) 60+ articles (or 100+ last week) in CAT:SEMI and absolutely zero response when I post on WP:AN or WP:ANI (which I have done, twice) I figure I should just go ahead and not spend additional time dropping 100+ talk page messages.

KKK is an editorial dispute: full protection avoids discrimination among users and is also a form of "editorial deprivation" that usually applies pressure to the warriors because they want to edit and know they can't until they cool off or it demonstrates that there is no true desire to discuss and that the page protection is pointless anyway. Regards, -Splash^talk 23:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

PS. I'm not particularly 'passionate' about protection issues, but I am firmly of the opinion that we shouldn't allow this wiki to become locked up by accidental creep. The project would never have gotten out of the starting blocks if that had ever been allowed. -Splash^talk 00:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. With regards to Shakespeare, I wouldn't have allowed the protection to last that long (even if that was what some editors wanted). If the article follows the previous pattern, the anonymous vandalism will pick up over the next few days. If it gets unmanagable, I'll semi-protect for a day or two then take the protection off. However, I'd prefer to leave it off and will just tell the other article editors that we have to get really swamped with vandals before I semi-protect it again. As for the KKK article, the protection has put pressure on the editors involved in the edit dispute and I believe we'll be done with the issue within a few days. Anyway, apologies if I came across as irritated or anything. You're doing good work and I'm glad there's an admin keeping an eye out on the protected pages. Best, --SouthernNights 00:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I can fully understand why admins may feel I am just disregarding them at times, but really I'm not as I do read the logs, history and article talk page (usually) before I unprotect, unless it's a really old protection. They made a choice in good judgement, and I've reversed it. I can see how that might irk someone; especially when it happens twice in an hour! (Actually, I don't reverse it. I just consider it to have expired, but to have been right at the time.) By all means re-semi Shakespeare if things get bad, and then lift it soon afterwards. And good luck with KKK — that must be very hard work to mediate. -Splash^talk 01:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hopkins School FAC

Hi SouthernNights! Thank you for the comments on Hopkins' peer review, I was happy to see you felt the article had improved so much from its first PR/FAC cycle. I have nominated it as an FAC once again, and I hope the article is good enough to garner your support! Staxringold 16:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your support! Staxringold 19:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And wow, continued thanks for standing by the article as you have been. Big thanks! Staxringold 19:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam

Dear SouthernNights, It was not my intention to create linkspam, a word with which I was unfamiliar until now. Many of the links you noticed do go to the same general website but they all provide either soundbites or information which can be found nowhere else on the web, to the best of my knowledge. The soundbites are not for sale but merely give listeners an idea of how the music in question sounds which I would think serves an educational purpose. It is true that the works described are available for sale in printed format, but no one is under any obligation and can listen all they desire. As mentioned, the soundbites are not for sale and the website does not sell CDs. So someone who likes the music they her in the soundbite would have to first find out if there was a recording (In many case there are none. Some soundbites were from live performances) and then go and obtain it elsewhere.

The bottom line is, I am sorry if I have violated a Wikipedia police, it was not my intention. I would not have included these links if the soundbites had been available anywhere else. Yours sincerely, Santo Neuenwelt

Copyright Issues

Dear SouthernNights, I guess I should have read the copyright section first before submitting my own material which does appear on the website I help with. While I did copy, verbatim, what I wrote, the submissions I made are not under copyright. I would imagine there is some way to alert you that one is submitting one's own material and that it has appeared on the website. I don't have the time to write all over or paraphrase my own work, but maybe it's not necessary...

Mostly, this was for articles on subjects which did not exist or existed in a one sentence form. It was done in the spirit to help. Sorry I did not follow the necessary guidelines. Yours sincerely, Santo Neuenwelt.

DaGizza's RfA

Thanks!

Hi SouthernNights/Archive 4, thank you for supporting me in my RfA which passed with a tally of (93/1/2). If you need any help or wish discuss something with me, you are always welcome to talk to me. Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Heinrich Marschner

I'm mystified by your reverting of Santo Neuenwelt's additions to the extremely scanty Marschner article. Or was it all pure invention? --GuillaumeTell 21:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Have Taken Your Advice

Dear SouthernNights, Persuant to your suggestion, I sent an e-mail to Wikipedia with the sample release GDFL license release you suggested allowing the use of material which appears on my website. I copied a list of all the articles I either created or added to along with the release and hope that they can be restored because it will be a long time before I will have the time to do it all over again. I also mentioned that you said I could reinsert the links because it was of soundbites not available anywhere else and not for sale etc. I do not know whether my contributions and these links can be restored automatically, but I hope so. If in the future, I have time to contribute and the material is mine and comes from my website, will I have to ask for permission to quote from it verbatim or will my release be enough to cover any future submissions. Also, how long, approximately, would it be until I hear whether my permission to quote and release have been approved? (I am in no rush, because like I said, I doubt I will have time to do it all over again for quite a while, but I was curious. I could probably add the links again.) Anyway, thanks. Yours sincerely, Santo Neuenwelt.

Allah Is in The House

I think it was a bit premature for your to close the afd. The consensus was not to keep, but rather no consensus. (63% in favor of keep). I don't know why you couldn't have let it run its course of 5 days per the deletion process... Gflores^Talk 17:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. However, in cased of AfDs if there is no consensus to delete then the article is kept. Since the votes were in favor of keeping, and the article was being linked to very prominently by a major media figure and was only one day short of the end of the deletion process, I decided to be bold and end the AfD. I think this is the best thing for Wikipedia because in the end there did not appear to be consensus for deletion and having the article up for deletion while being linked to by such a prominent blogger would have created bad press for Wikipedia. I understand that my actions will irritate some people and I accept any repercussions that might come my way. Best,--SouthernNights 17:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand and I'm not irritated. It was just that you said there is a consensus to keep, which is false. But, I ultimately agree with your move on ending it early. P.S., it's in need of a category. Gflores^Talk 21:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I misspoke when I said consensus to keep. I meant to say there was no consensus not to delete. I went back and corrected the statement to this effect. Best, --SouthernNights 01:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks & Questions

Dear SouthernNights, Thank you for resstoring some of my articles (and for your guidance with regard to copyright and GNU). Your restoration has saved me a lot of time which at the moment I do not really have.

I have 2 questions for you.

1. Several of my revisions and or links I made were not restored. I am assuming that this is unintentional or just that you have not got to it yet. In many cases, the stub entry had little or no info and my revision provided 2-3 paragraphs of biography. In other cases the links were not restored. Here is a listing of those revisions not restored:

Woldemar Bargiel-info missing / Karel Bendl-some info missing / Arthur Foote--info and link missing / Friedrich Gernsheim-some info and link / Alexander Gretchaninov (this is the preferred spelling by the way, not Gretchaninoff the older less used one)--bio and link missing / Heinrich von Herzogenberg--link missing / Johann Nepomuk Hummel--link missing, possibly info, I can't remember Heinrich Marschner--bio and link missing / George Onslow (The entry which lists him as Georges is incorrect--I am an Onslow specialist having written a book on his string quartets and although he was part French, his name is George not Georges. How can I, or can you correct this. / Joseph Rheinberger--link missing / Wilhelm Stenhammar--some info and 2 links missing / Arthur Sullivan--link missing and maybe info / Ambroise Thomas--link missing / Robert Volkmann--link missing /

2. I added biographical information to the page on Friedrich Kuhlau which was verbatim from my website. I am assuming this is okay now that I gave the release, nonetheless, I created a References section and stated that the info was from my website by a GNU release had been given. Is this the okay way to proceed?

Thanking you very much for your help, Yours sincerely, Santo Neuenwelt

RfA Results and Thanks

SouthernNights/Archive 4, thank you for your constructive neutral comments in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. In the meantime, I will do my best to address your concerns in the hope that when the opportunity for adminship arises once again, you will reconsider your position. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path. --- joturner 05:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Artificial Hip article

You deleted my Artifical Hip article because the people there were unimportant or something. I take this as more of an opinion, and think the deletion was unnecessary. Please explain to me why an album is unimportant...

Thank you

Hello SouthernNights, how are you? Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (88/3/1), so I am now an administrator. I am very humbled by your vote and your kind comments and am very grateful. Please let me know if at any stage you require assistance, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an administrator. Once again thank you and with kind regards Gryffindor 18:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your vote of confidence in my recent request for bureaucratship. Even though it didn't pass, I greatly appreciate your support and hope I will continue to have your respect. Thank you! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete the RollerJam page?

That page didn't violate ANY copywrites. Those rules were the offical rules of RollerJam, and were taken from RollerJam's website, when it was still available. I happened to have printed the rules out and typed them up for the article. I don't like someone coming in and deleting my work when I know I was not violating any copywrites. And that geocities page you quoted in the delete, is a Fan page, it not protected by any copywrite laws. Dickclarkfan1 02:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As you admitted, you copied the rules from RollerJam's website. That is a copyright violation. And fan pages, and indeed any written copy anywhere on the web, are indeed protected by copyright. It didn't matter to me if your text was copied from the RollerJam website or a fan site, either way it is a copyright violation and not allowed at Wikipedia. For more info, see Wikipedia:Copyrights. Best, --SouthernNights 13:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And thats NOT a violation of copywrites seeing the show NO LONGER EXISTS. On top of that, the fan site you have cited, is in violation of your said "copywrite" cause he took his rules from the offical RollerJam website as well (when it was still active). Better yet, why don't you delete the entire Roller Derby article if you're going to scream Copywrite cause the Seltzer family owns the copywrite to Roller Derby. Dickclarkfan1 22:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on copyright--it doesn't matter if RollerJam doesn't exist anymore, their copyright stands. And I'm not responsible for the copyright violation by the fan website, only for Wikipedia not publishing copyright violations. Finally, the Roller Derby article does not violate copyright as long as the text of the article isn't copied from elsewhere b/c no one can copyright an idea or name (that would be the realm of patents and trademarks).--SouthernNights 22:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Freekat

You deleted the Freekat wiki even though i didn't violate any copyrights or laws because i took the information from their site!

Please see the notice at the top of this talk page about copyrights. Taking information from their site is copyright infringement.--SouthernNights 15:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Restoration of Pages.

I am wondering if the pages I mentioned to you with missing information and or links are going to be restored now that a GNU license has been granted.

Also I asked if I had done the right think vis-a-vis the page on Kuhlau I added to so that I do not make the same mistake I did with the others in the future.

Thank you for your response. Santo Neuenwelt

Gamerz Realm Network

I am the sole owner operator, aka Duke Atreide, of that site, and I have specifically stated at the bottom of the page which I copied the text I previously wrote and expanded upon that I release it for general use anywhere. You can view it for yourself by going to the bottom of this page:

http://www.runescaperealm.com/modules.php?name=Content&file=viewarticle&id=11

Sorry about the confusion. Rifleman000 00:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. I left info on this at Talk:Gamerz Realm Network. Best, --SouthernNights 00:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Have made the below change to the above page: "This History of RSR page is approved for use under GFDL."Rifleman000 00:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I recreated the article and gave it some Wiki formatting. Please be aware, though, that the article still needs more info on the greater significance of these sites. If not, someone might still challenge the legitimacy of the article and try to have it deleted. Now that the copyright concern has been addressed, though, the article should no longer be at risk of a speedy delete. Thanks for your help on all of this. --SouthernNights 00:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me on this issue. I plan to bring this up to Wiki standards as quickly as possible. Thanks for all the help. Rifleman000 00:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Deciding whether to delete"

This wasn't satisfied: Deciding whether to delete

  1. Whether a "rough consensus" has been achieved (see below)
  2. Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.
  3. As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it.
  4. When in doubt, don't delete.

A google seach on "mike hersh" results in "about 42,900" hits.

Mike Hersh pioneered online activism, which led to powerful organizations such as MoveOn.org and the early success of the Howard Dean campaign.

Mike Hersh has worked with members of Congress and the Senate, candidates for several offices, Cindy Sheehan, and the "new wave" of activist groups including Progressive Democrats of America and Democracy for America which are changing the face of politics by increasing citizen activism and small donorship.

Copyvio?

Please see Georgian National Bank.

Yep. Big time. Many thanks for letting me know.--SouthernNights 20:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Marshall, Texas

This piece that I have contributed to wikipedia is the one closest to my heart and widely considered to be my best by the community. Until recently I have recieved no complaints about it and it is still viewed as a model by others who want to work an article up to featured status. Staxringold has nominated it for removal from FAC, frankly I'm so disillusioned with Wikipedia it's tempting just to leave for good, but I digress. I want you to review the article and the FARC. The article is old and largely intact, so the need for update to current FAC standards is actionable. However some of the complaints are not, sources are limited because the subject is limited and some of the assertions made in the complaints are simply inaccurate and opinionate accusing the lead of being odd and not incuding the infromation in the article (for example that the city is known for its Civil War, Civil Rights, and Railroad histroy) when their is an History section that includes details about all of those events. Please get back to me as soon as possible. Thanks. -JCarriker 01:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the issue of removing its FA status has been broached, I want to do more than bring the article up to minimum standards. The article has been view as one of the best city articles even as a model on how to make a city FA, for some time and it is that status which I want to restore. I've added thirteen inline references, more than many city FAs, I intend to add more when I obtain more source material. I'm not opposed to adding more either. I am considering breaking off some of the famous people and sites lists, to a separate list page. However, since most other FA city articles have something similar, I believe that the sentiment expressed by Straxringold is a personal preference and therefore I do not want to remove all of them. I want to reduce them to the most important ones, perhaps aligning the lists with pics in the section and providing a link to a more extensive list. I'm also planning on rearranging the pictures and adding a few new ones. I'd also like to review the main text to see where it can be improved—your opinion solicited—and I am going to try to create a map of central Marshall similar to the map in Downtown Dallas that can appear either this article or a separate article on Central Marshall, which is a better idea than creating a separate article for every significant building—I'm waxing mergeist in my old age. I am interested in how you think that the lead could be improved. Thanks for your help in advance. -JCarriker 22:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete - linkspam query

Re your comments here [2], I thank you; could you possibly clarify which speedy criteria is met? I used db-copyvio as I could not find another relevant criteria. Many thanks, Colonel Tom 18:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

When I looked at the articles they were blatent copyright violations of info on other websites. They were also link spam and advertising and vanity pages but the copyright violation was why I deleted them. For what its worth, when you find link spam on Wikipedia the odds are really high that the people who put that up also copied the text of the article, or major parts of it, from somewhere else on the web. Best,--SouthernNights 19:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:ARCHIVES

Hi again! Given the opinion you gave at the request for comment on archives I thought you might be interested to know the issue has now been put to a straw poll and could use your vote! Staxringold 00:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Opinion solicited

I've made significant changes to the Marshall article in meeting, Staxringolds conditions. I'd really like it if you could get back to me with your ideas on how to improve the introduction. Thanks. -JCarriker 05:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello? Anybody out there? -JCarriker 21:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at the new lead and the added 21st century section and get back to me promptly. Thanks. -JCarriker 05:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Many thanks for your support on my recent RfA. It was successful. Thanks again, Mark83 19:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Michel de Hey

Dear SouthernNights: In regards to your action at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Michel_de_Hey. Allow me to point out that you have no evidence that the article you've deleted is a copyright violation of Djguide.nl. If it's a copyright violation of something, it's a copyright violation of http://www.micheldehey.nl/aspx/pages/biography.aspx. The DJ owns the biography. With all due respect, I strongly suggest that you re-write your argument. Thanks. Kiko Loureiro 08:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The article was a copyright violation of several places which had nearly identical copy. In the interest of space I only copied one of the original urls.--SouthernNights 13:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologise if I've completely misunderstood you, but I still think you ought cite the original link which happens to be his official site. Anyway, thanks a lot. Kiko Loureiro 14:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

CV discussion

Ok, no harm done. I just got the feeling that things were progressing faster than a well-considered approach would have them do. If a bot can help humans, then that'd be great. The proposals on AN are sort of circling around some possibilites; maybe something will turn up. -Splash^talk 14:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC started on Merecat

I noticed you have met Merecat and therefore I would like to inform you that in light of recent events (not discussing disputed edits, disruptive behaviour, edit warring and making personal attacks) this Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat has been started. I trust should you want to contribute, you will be an objective bystander. If you do not want to comment that's OK. Sincerely Nomen Nescio 18:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sam Pitroda

A couple of days ago you deleted an article on Sam Pitroda on the basis of copyright violation. While parts of the article may have been in violation, there were many sections that I had contributed to that were not. I was wondering if you could reinstate the article as it was and I will work hard to make sure that all content in violation of any copyright will be dealt with. Thank you. DevanJedi 14:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; I am restoring it from Google's cache with major modifications (no copyright vio). DevanJedi 14:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If you end up needing me to restore the article, let me know. It would be best, though, if you can create it without all the copyrighted text. Best,--SouthernNights 14:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom Humbarger - iRise

A couple of days ago you "speedily" deleted an article on iRise. While I appreciate your 'diligence', there are many software companies listed under the category - Categories: Computer companies of the United States | Software companies.

Why are some companies allowed and others are not? Or are you just trying to stop any new postings? My article was purely factual and followed the outlines of several other companies - check out Parasoft for example.

According to Google [3] only 22 websites link to iRise's webpage. As the article states, only 75 companies use the product. I believe that does not rise to the level of notability that Wikipedia aims for. However, I'm happy to undelete the article and put the Irise page up for a deletion vote. You will need to make a case per the instructions at the top of the article as to why the article should be kept. Best,--SouthernNights 15:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would like you to restore it. While we only have 75 customers, we are on the forefront of a new way to define software applications. The traditional way has been to use a combination of Word, Powerpoint, Visio, and other tools to write the software definition and specifications in text. Our unique and paradigm-shifting approach lets business users quickly create rapid prototypes or simulations of any software application - before doing any coding or programming. Essentially, we are doing for the software industry what CAD software did for the manufacturing industry -- and we are poised for the same kind of growth that arose in that industry when it was first introduced. -- User:thumbarger 14:50 17 April 2006

afd of cool

I urge you to change your vote on this. The article is original research at its very core-- the reason it has gone months without verification is because its unverifiable-- its a well written opinion. Could you explain to me how anything could verify that "Cool is feminine energy"? That's why everyone is voting to delete or merge, because it is a biased theory of cool, that serves as a POV fork. Also, I think it would be especially bad if the decision was no consensus, as the community clearly wants the article deleted-- the only question is whether it should be merged or not; something which could be decided by a seperate vote, or even at the article itself. Thanks for considering this, --Urthogie 18:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Your thoughts with respect to the capacious discussion that has taken place at both the AfD page and the AfD talk page well encapsulate my thinking on the matter; I have been altogether amazed that at the wide-ranging and strident debate that has taken place, parts of it altogether irrelevant to an AfD determination. I feel altogether sorry for the admin who closes the debate; it surely is easy to dismiss such a long page as necessarily reflecting no consensus, but that determination should not be made exclusively in view of a lengthy debate's having taken place--nevertheless, I expect the article will be closed as no consensus. In any case, you're altogether right that soon this may fall into the "lamest edit wars ever" category... :) Joe 03:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I've made my statement on what I believe should happen and I'm now staying away from that debacle. And you are correct--I pity the admin that has to wade into that crap. That's a shame, though. There is an article buried in all that crap but I suspect the editors involved will not be able to reach consensus and find it. Best, --SouthernNights 11:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Expanded intro

I've reorganized and expanded the lead in Marshall, Texas. I've also added a section on 21st century, since it seems somewhat silly to have section on the previous two centuries and not the present one. Please get back to be soon. Thanks. -JCarriker 12:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio revert?

Hey SouthernNights,

I stumbled on this strange revert [4] by Ihcoyc (talk · contribs), where your flag of a copyvio was removed. Kind of bad form too, the revert was marked as a minor edit. I also noticed some other minor reverts in the contribs, but didnt check them out. Thought you might want to follow up on it.

Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 16:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

PRC on WP:FARC

Thanks for voting on Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/People's Republic of China. The objection you made about inline citations (WP:FOOTNOTEs) has been taken care of with the inclusion of nearly 30 footnotes. Please re-review the article, and make any necessary changes to your vote. Thanks, AndyZ _t 15:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

hello

I just want to stop by and say hello --- Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 13:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC) talk

Talk Ex-Yugoslavia

Talk:Kosovo#2 Administrator for Ex-Yugoslavien articels in Wikipedia- The voice of Kosovar

Im not spamen. I wont to protect this seites from Propaganda--172.178.31.243 00:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont know who is neutral administrator. But how it is now, is not neural point of wieve. Call sombady who can disedt about that.--172.178.31.243 00:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoever this person is has been quite disruptive at Kosovo and related articles. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you see that. Please give a answer here. I am waiting--172.178.31.243 00:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am working for neutralty in Wiki. I dont wont traubels. The oly think wat I wan ist prasentin Wikipedia als neutral project with out propagander. After one year work in the Wikipedia project that was the only sulution. In the other side Wikipedia is going to be not the science encyclopedi but propaganda encyclopedi.--172.177.121.217 00:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You are administrator. I am waiting now your steps about this problem--172.177.121.217 00:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

We need a burockrat or group of administrators. The administrators must be Neutral.--172.178.132.39 02:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the article's editors are handling this issue rather nicely.--SouthernNights 13:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete of Integra Realty Resources

Being deleted by SouthernNights is a major kudo in my book, and I am honored at the time you spend to educate a "newbie wikipedian", not even sure if the two words are mutually exclusive, perhaps you are newbie or wikipedian, but not both?. I believe the Integra piece was a "stub", not a vanity piece since the company is a peer with CBRE and Cushman Wakefield in the arena of real estate valuation(both in Wikipedia with same substance problem); and Integra is 3 times larger than both- although privately held. The Chairman of Integra sits on the Federal Reserve Board of the US currently, and other notable (and historical) reasons for inclusion (not all were mentioned- hence stub). I have a personal interest in all things related to economic valuation of real estate, and like your speciality in African American writers- I intended on authoring and linking all of the relevant "value" concepts in Wiki. There are notable missing resources (Appraisal Institute, formed 1922 USA) although FRICS is mentioned. Some value theory information is contained, but there is a TON more missing. Integra probably relates to all of this tangentially, but perhaps work on other resources might convince you that this is not a local accounting company meeting the vanity criterion; thanks for the delete though - I'll take it in stride. Amgraziano 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that the CBRE and Cushman Wakefield articles have issues. I'll check them out and see if they also should be deleted. Your article made no mention of the significance of the organization and read like many pieces of linkspam which people place in Wikipedia. As I said on your talk page, if you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources. Best, --SouthernNights 17:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A past deletion question.

Hi earlier this month you deleted a number of articles created by Ryan Lanham as copyvio, such as Charles Goodsell and Max Stephenson. I was wondering what was the source of the material? Thanks.--blue520 13:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That author created an entire series of articles based on copy ripped from academic university websites. For example, his article "Barry Bozeman" was a copyright violation of http://cns.asu.edu/about/people/bozeman.htm. Since I pointed out to him that this was not allowed, he recreated several of the articles with his own copy so the recreated versions are not copyright violations. Is this what you needed. Best, --SouthernNights 14:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was help full, thanks. Looks like I might still have to do some checking. It was I had noticed that a number of the articles in this joint AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Refounding Public Administration and previously been deleted (or one with a similar name had) and was just checking. Thank you again for taking the time.--blue520 14:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Cedar High School

Hi, can I ask what was the criteria used in the deletion of this article. The deletion log [5], didn't say anything. --Rob 22:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Re the whole de-bureaucrating thing

Hi, I never came to thank you for the message you left for me a month ago when I stepped down from being a bureaucrat. Thank you for the things you said, it's good to know there are still plenty of good people about in this project. I do not see myself standing for bureaucrat again anytime soon though who knows what the future may bring! Thank you once again. -- Francs2000 09:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Twins ballpark

Why was this article deleted? Jonathan 22:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it is predicting a future event, which is specifically against Wikipedia guidelines. For more info, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twins ballpark. The article has been blocked from being recreated b/c an editor keeps recreating it even after that vote for deletion. If the stadium ever actually happens, then I or another admin will unblock it and the article can be created. Best, --SouthernNights 17:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Montgomery Academy

Why the block?

Hey Alabama,

Why did you block me after I edited the article on the Montgomery Academy?

I am a great source of information on that school. The material which currently shows is very biased and mostly opinion. My changes did not remove much from the original article. They just pointed out where there was opinion and distinguished those opinions from fact.

I really resent your treatment of me, by the way. That was rude; blocking me, accusing me of vandalism, and the arrogant tone of your message. This is a community site. And you are blocking both me and my contributions for no good reason.

What is your beef against the Academy? Do you have the minutes from the founding meetings? Are you even from Montgomery? How can you say it was founded as a "seg school?" Did you not read the biography linked at the bottom? Do you think that man was racist?

Rob W [--66.44.103.111 2006-05-02t18:45:44z]

SouthernNights, no edits [6] happened after the 2 warnings [7], so waiting for another edit would have been more definitely preventative. Please also see WP:3RR#Administrator involvement, tho I'm not knowledgable enough on the subject to judge whether it's vandalism.

I understand that it's an tough job — thanks for all your work on contentious articles. -- Jeandré, 2006-05-02t21:15z

After reviewing the situation, what appears to happens is that I didn't see the final edit until after I placed the warnings. I failed to verify the time stamp and mistook the final edit for another vandalism and the 3rd RR. My apology for the oversight. Since the editor kept removing content from the article without stating why and was an anonymous, first time user, I belived the edits to be vandalism. Anyway, since the editor states that this was not vandalism, I accept that and apologize for saying such. I will say, though, that the editor's desired edits are not correct and are unsourced and that I believe the article to be ballanced. Apologies for any hassles over all of this.--SouthernNights 23:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

First, off a caveat—I am in poor health and have some problems concentrating so please take that into account as you consider my advice. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of the mediation committee, and am a former advocate. I consider this to be a consultative response, and as such you may wish to mention that you sought my advice in the mediation process.

Mediation is justified, but if the user refuses to amend her behavior it will likely fail and move on to arbitration. At this point the user will either escalate her criticism of you or give up and move on. Her personal attacks on you, especially her violation of the No legal threats, (one of the earliest reasons a prominient user was banned, and by Jimbo himself nonetheless). Her refusal to provide sources and your repeated attempts and willingness to meet her conditions should work to your advantage in the arbitration process. If she can find a source, or an amicable agreement can be reached from mediation you both will benefit. In the meantime just continue behaving as you have, if the mediation process is to fail let her be the cause. You have have policy on your side and you have met this challenge to your work with good faith.

In my opinion so long as you can keep your understandable frustration under control you have nothing to fear but a few baseless personal attacks. Rememeber everything is permanent and public her, don't post anything that you may regret latter, even the most seasoned admins, myself included, can and have fallen into that trap. Let me know if this is helpful or if there is anyhing else that I can do. I would be happy to help you through the arbitration process if it comes to that and if my health permits. -JCarriker 23:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Re [8]. Those involved seem to be talking past each other, and no amount of explaining or linking to policies has helped — I think the mediators will be good for a new perspective. It's frustating, but I think sie can become a useful editor in the end. -- Jeandré, 2006-05-04t12:08z

Montgomery Academy

No problem. First of all, you have been much more amenable than the other editor, and all of your actions have been within policies and guidelines, so I have no complaints. You do appear to want to stick to your guns though, which is understandable. The next step really depends on what you and the Anonymous want to do. I'm happy to continue mediating, although I don't think for the moment it will get anywhere. If the situation doesn't improve for a few days I would recommend taking it to an RfC, or alternatively to the Mediation committee, who have a more formal structure. Although there is only so far mediation can go without willing on the other side.

I will refrain from making any changes until the mediation is definately over if that is ok with you, in certain cases it can help for someone to take unilateral action, but I think in this case it would probably cement her against me, wrecking any (possible) future deal. I appreciate your cool headedness and if you want me to comment on an RfC I would be more than willing, thanks :) - FrancisTyers 13:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous editor has made some sourced contributions, could you look over them, and if you disagree, discuss on the talk page rather than immediately reverting if you don't approve. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 14:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is changing fairly quickly, to be honest, I've been happy with pretty much every version. If she is convinced that we're back to square one then I think we have to look at our options. My initial suggestion would be to ask for an RfC on the article, get both sides to present their opinions and then ask for outside opinions. I can ask a few people to comment on it, and in a formal structure such as an RfC it might have more weight. I'm going to try going through one more iteration of this, but if there are continued baseless complaints then I think something more formal might be in order. On the bright side, the article on segregation academies has been improved :) Let me know if you want me to set up the RfC or if you are happy doing it yourself... - FrancisTyers 15:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Give me a shout when (if) the RfC is available for public comment. - FrancisTyers 15:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If it keeps going an RfC will help in two ways. At the moment the Anon believes that it is between you and her pretty much, an RfC will bring more people to comment. It will then be between several random Wikipedians and her, which will be much harder to get her own way by the current methods. The RfC is also largely a one pass thing. She'll have a chance to put her side and then we'll see other opinions. Personally I think the article is better without the Griffin reference, but her characterisation of the Guardian as a "tabloid" is pretty hilarious, I refrained from commenting on that — and you should have to remove sourced information. I seriously think that if we can't crack it in a day then an RfC will bring a closure to the problem. See my latest comments on the talk page. - FrancisTyers 16:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Request for assistance

SouthernNights, long time no see (or write). Thank you for letting me know about your concerns. I know that you must feel a little frustrated but, don't let it get you down. I have expressed myself in the articles talk page and stated that Wiki is about verifiable sources. Your sources so far are verfiable. If you have some time I would like to invite you to look at one of my latest articles African immigration to Puerto Rico. It is part of a Puerto Rican immigration series which I started. Let me know what you think. Adios! Tony the Marine 05:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

(Note: I noticed that the info box in the Montgomery Academy article is huge and that it is "slicing" into the introduction paragraph)

POV?

You said in your edit summary that my attempt to de-emphasize the motivations of the founders in the lead paragraph was POV. I disagree with that characterization. --Dystopos 21:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Souring

Ultimately one anonymous editor spent a great deal of time questioning your sources without much success. The process, as I see it, eventually worked out in Wikipedia's favor as the conflict resulted in more specific sources supporting the obvious historical context as well as the additional material you provided about the current status of the academy. The worst thing that happened was a great deal of harsh words, verbiose argument, and external review that really accomplished nothing. This is an unfortunate characteristic of Wikipedia, but I'm not sure I see a way around it. I'll do what I can to limit the lengths to which I go to express myself, but as you can see already, my self control is thin. Anyone can call a source into question. That is true always and everywhere. Wikipedia is helping the world to realize the need for critical thinking about reference sources. It seems to me that the Montgomery Academy conflict is an example where verifiability eventually wins out over bluster, even if the bluster leaves a sour taste. --Dystopos 21:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What next?

It seems that a reasonable consensus has developed on the proper treatment of MA's history. At this point I think it would be safe to no longer respond to the anonymous editor's whining on the talk page and to revert edits that clearly deviate from consensus and thereby violate our understanding of the requirements of an NPOV. If this course turns into an edit conflict I think we could look for more outside opinions. I agree that continuing to argue on the talk page is useless. --Dystopos 02:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

reinsertions

I am quite aware of the agony that brought us here. I think it's time to look at the article itself in the context of an encyclopedia, not in the context of a dispute which I think has been satisfactorily resolved. I believe, as do you, that Montgomery Academy was brought into being and operated as a classic example of a segregation academy. I think that this is laid out pretty clearly even in my slimmed-down version from last night. I don't see the need for the article to belabor the point by piling up tertiary sources to support what should be an obvious conclusion. The improvements to the segregation academies article provide an opportunity for general references to be used elsewhere. Those that specifically mention MA were left in. The 1983 court case really truly doesn't have much to do with MA except that the plaintiffs listed it as a discriminatory institution benefitting unfairly from IRS policy. That much is relevant - the details of the decision are not. --Dystopos 13:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• As to whether I support what you've reinserted, I'm not sure yet. I'm interested in an article that's clear, accurate, and comprehensive. If I get some time I'll look at it again and make whatever changes I believe are appropriate. If we reach another stalemate we'll discuss it. No big deal. --Dystopos 14:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Jay Robert Nash

I'm not aware of another public reference to this. It's called original reporting. --Michael Snow 15:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)