User talk:SouthernNights/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Article on WaTunes

I've looked on my page and it gives me this error "17:12, 14 September 2007 SouthernNights (Talk | contribs) deleted "WaTunes" ‎ (CSD A7 (Web): Article about a web site that does not assert significance)" Why was my page deleted and how can I have it undeleted due to that I now have lots of notability and references.

Thanks,

--Xandus (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Article on Matt Gangi

After doing a little editing on the Paw Tracks label page, I came over to the stub on Matt Gangi to write in some discography. Not only did I find the page deleted, but you also listed the page as protected? How come? Thanks --UltraCaution (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• I too am curious as to why the Matt Gangi page is protected. --69.138.243.158 (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The article has been deleted five times by three different admins. In short, the subject is not notable. The page has been protected to prevent recreation of the article.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• If given the opportunity, I could write an article that would assert nobility. --140.239.230.226 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ha, I couldn't tell you if he is noble or not (I assume it is a typo above)... but I could write an article that would show, not necessarily nobility... but definitely notability. --UltraCaution (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A new article has been created at Gangi (musician). I've tagged it for deletion. Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Another request to unprotect the Matt Gangi article. In my daily readings of the reliable Pitchforkmedia, I saw him listed as a contributor to another nationally distributed album- a tribute to The Cure, appearing on it with a score of notable artists, Dandy Warhols, Blonde Redhead, Bat for Lashes, Ariel Pink, CocoRosie, blackblack, Indian Jewelry, Lou Doillon, etc, etc.. Also, I promise not to write the article until I get even more sources (I'll do an additional few months of research and follow the artist), so that notability won't even be a question. However, can I ask you to unprotect the page in case somebody else has/obtains more information? That is the point of wikipedia and why it is so powerful! Thanks. UltraCaution (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 26 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Earl Kemp, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 19:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User and Talk pages

I will be collaborating with Johntex on a salvage effort on the Marshall, Texas article to avoid the need for a FAR. I would like my userpage and talk page unprotected for the duration of my activity on this project. Your opinions on the article renovation will be most welcome of course. Thanks. -JCarriker 22:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. I'll also check out the article and any critiques. --SouthernNights 13:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've had a change of heart after seeing that most of my work here is now worthless. I'd like my userpages deleted, except the Texan Cabal which I want given to Johntex. If you'd like to make a historical summary or soemthing that's fine, but I want the pages as they are now gone. Thanks. -Jay

Recovering data from a deleted article

Is there any way I can retrive the information from an article that has been deleted (i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyran Star Empire)? I am working to set up a workable article which would include information from this article and several others and am hoping I would not have to completely recreate it.

Or, is it possible we could get this rebuilt as a redirect to Alpha Octant?

Thank you for your time.--Donovan Ravenhull 18:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your time. I did not want to risk sanctions for recreating the article, even as just a redirect, directly after a deletion.--Donovan Ravenhull 19:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

sorry

I thought that the issue was resolved because Mrs.EasterBunny wanted some people to comment on if the comment "Groundless AFD" was inappropriate. Somebody said they wouldn't have used that phrase, I seconded the comment. If Mrs.EasterBunny is mad, I'm sure she will say so. Given that her comments are often very polite, I think she may be satisfied and, if so, the matter is resolved! If not, she can say so.

UTAFA 22:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem.--SouthernNights 22:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

C'mmon ask me a question

p

You said "I left some links at the top of this page so you can learn more about Wikipedia. Welcome.--SouthernNights"

I've been editing for 6 months, albeit not too much. I've seen cooperation. I've seen conflict. Ask me a question about wikipedia policy. Let's see if I can answer it. If not, it's something to learn. C'mon, hit me right here with a question. Free use question? BLP question? Sock it to me and see me either hit a home run or collapse while gripping my stomach :p UTAFA 22:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Chat

Good to see your page back. You are my friend and I will always be here for you. Tony the Marine 17:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. And likewise back at you.--SouthernNights 19:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi

How long does it take after making some edits for the changes to appear Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.73.109 (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Chat

So what would be the definition of a "Remarkable Person"? Are there forms that I would have to fill out to be a "Remarkable Person"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.207.124.226 (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

re Email

Thanks for the advice, but i have already made it very clear in my last message to him that i have no desire to get involved in their petty disputes, in fact i may have been a bit strong, but i wanted to be clear. Anyway, thank you for your concern--Jac16888 23:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem.--SouthernNights 00:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!

10,000 edits! Amazing. Thank you for all your hard work. Aside from your enormous contribution, you are considerate and reasonable - two of the most important qualities on these pages. You set an example for us all.Smatprt 03:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the extremely kind words. Best,--SouthernNights 20:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for breast protect

I substantially reorganised breast some months ago, and since then have kept an eye on it. There has been a lot of vandalism, as you know, and I want to thank you for semi-protecting it. I knew it had to be done, but wasn't sure of the steps necessary to officially persuade "the system" that that was an appropriate measure. I fear it may need to be a permanent protection -- as long as we have adolescents, we are going to have editors who think anything to do with sexuality, including sexual anatomy, is inherently worth putting their mark on. Kilroy was here. I imagine that knee and pancreas don't get so much negative attention. Anyway, thanks again. BrainyBabe 08:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem.--SouthernNights 20:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

VRM

I have added a new ending to the article. It does not cover all of the connections between VRM and VRW, but it covers what I think scholars outline as the most important one. Sensibility would be the second most important one. Let me know if you think I should add sensibility. I was trying to avoid listy-ness. Awadewit | talk 03:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's better. I still prefer the version that Kaldari worked up, but I can live with this.--SouthernNights 22:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war at Killian documents authenticity issues

Would you mind taking at look at the Killian_documents_authenticity_issues page? An edit war has been going on there for a few weeks between User:Callmebc and others such as this. One of the issues is the definition of original research. It'd be a great help if WP:OR could be spelled out for all of us. Sorry to bother you with this, but I saw you had worked on the same issue with Callmebc last spring. Thanks, Jmcnamera 00:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll need to contact another admin. Due to possible conflict of interest issues due to previous personal attacks on me by an editor of that article, I will not involve myself in this issue. Best, --SouthernNights 00:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection of William Shakespeare

I didn't have a problem with your protection of this page the first time - it had been vandalised over 30 times in 2 hours. However since I unprotected it 3 1/2 hours ago, it has only been vandalised about a dozen times. That's pretty standard for the main page FA. Do you really think protection is needed at this time? WjBscribe 13:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have raised the matter at WP:ANI for input from more administrators so we can reach a consensus on whether protection is still needed [1]. WjBscribe 13:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I responded there. I should note, though, that the vandalism you referenced happened in a relatively short period of time and was justified in my view.--SouthernNights 13:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Three Valley Museum

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Three Valley Museum. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dsmdgold 13:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Best selling author of all time

Is factual and referenced. Greatest writer is subjective and not factual. Both claims indicate the importance of Shakespeare. Sad mouse 17:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the info that Shakespeare is "now widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's preeminent dramatist" is both heavily cited (see the references), factually accurate, and also the consensus wording on this article. Please do not change that wording without first gaining a new consensus to do so.--SouthernNights 17:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

SouthernNights, you are an admin which means you are completely familiar with policy and interactions so I have no concern that you acted in bad faith at any point. I was personally put-off by your comments “that should end the debate on this” and “I am through with this debate. Every time someone presents referenced and accurate info for you, you split hairs”, because I don’t think you made an honest attempt to understand my position before slamming it down (and I felt that your response “considered by many to be the greatest dramatist of all time” in Britannica means we can write “greatest writer of all time” here was relatively weak), but you are under no obligation to try to understand my position so no harm done. The personal attack I was referring to was “fueled by personal opposition and nothing else” which was not by you and not something I would bother taking further, however I cannot consider this person to read my position in good faith after a remark like this.

I will not make any changes to Shakespeare, or further comments on the talk page or your talk page, because without others being willing to consider my point dispassionately no consensus will occur. I just found it incredibly frustrating because it seemed like people were assuming that my purpose in rewording the intro was to belittle Shakespeare’s importance. I was upfront in stating that I don’t think he is the greatest writer of the English language, but also in stating that that was not the reason for my proposed change. You stated in your reply to me that “the general public along with critics see Shakespeare as the greatest writer”, and this is what I just don’t see any justification for. I understand and agree with your point that critics and literature scholars widely acknowledge Shakespeare as the greatest writer, and indeed I would be fine with a line saying “critics and literature scholars widely acknowledge Shakespeare as the greatest writer”. But I feel like you didn’t make an effort to understand my point that even if he is the greatest writer and acknowledged as such by every scholar, that doesn’t mean the broad public would have that opinion. As the polls that I linked to indicate, Shakespeare’s works are not included on the list of the public’s all time favourite book, which indicates that they do not consider him the greatest writer. It seems like so many people in this discussion have also assumed that “widely regarded” refers to the general population which means that the introduction sentence is misleading unless there is strong evidence for the general population’s sentiment. Afterall, the scholars were making their assessment of Shakespeare’s critical value and influence, all the references they make are saying that “Shakespeare is the greatest writer” not “the wide public think that Shakespeare is the greatest writer”. In fact, a literature scholar that I know recently moaned that so many people she knew outside literature thought more of Dan Brown than Shakespeare. She would have absolutely stated that Shakespeare was better, but would not have said that the general public think Shakespeare is better. This is why I think that a comment like “critics and literature scholars widely acknowledge Shakespeare as the greatest writer” or “Shakespeare is the best-selling author of all time” would be more factually accurate statements (and don’t reduce his importance). Anyway, that is it from me. Sad mouse 02:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare "greatest" debate

I think when he/she is talking about attacks she is reffering to when you said she was splitting hairs and being nit-picky. I don't think that's really an attack, but it's the closest there was in the discussion. Anyway, just wanted to clarify what I think is her POV. Take it as you will. Wrad 00:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Very good point. I shouldn't have said that. My apology.--SouthernNights 00:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment on my use of admin powers

As discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Protection_of_William_Shakespeare_.28main_page_FA.29, several editors and admins feel that I misused my admin powers in semi-protecting the William Shakespeare article when it was linked to by the main page. I initially semi-protected the article during a spurt of vandalism, reprotected the article the next day when vandalism picked up again, then removed the protection when concerns were raised. I said I would monitor the situation and if the vandalism picked up, I would reapply protection. That is what eventually happened. This article is one that I have worked on and monitored for a number of years. The article is heavily vandalized during the school year by kids. My position on protecting articles is that once vandalism passes a certain point, I feel it is unfair to ask editors to spend all their time reverting said vandalism.

I ask that people comment on whether I violated any conflict of interest in my actions, if I acted in bad faith, or if I abused my administrator responsibility. Based on the comments, I am prepared to no longer use any admin powers with regards to the Shakespeare article or even give up being an administrator if people feel that is warranted. Please comment below.--SouthernNights 01:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• This isn't really a serious abuse of admin powers... especially since as far as I can tell you've been civil at all times. There was a disagreement, maybe you didn't know the full implications of using admin powers here, it's not like you protected a page to gain advantage in a content dispute or something. Maybe consider a personal "1 revert rule" for using protection in the future? --W.marsh 01:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see any need for this, Your doing fine, just be open. Mercury 01:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• With regards to the small amount of interaction we had on the Shakespeare article I don't think you violated conflict of interest and you certainly did not act in bad faith or abused your admin powers. I think it is unnecessary for you to limit your use of admin powers on the Shakespeare article and I certainly think it would be an over-reaction for you to give up your admin status. I think that every editor who has heavily invested in an article is over-protective of it, but you didn't violate any policies with your revisions. I personally believe that as a matter of style (not policy) the people who got an article FA status should sit back and see what happens to the articles as the general effect is positive and the quality of the changes can be debated after it is off the front-page, but I don't think our disagreement on style has any relevance on your admin use. Sad mouse 02:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Protecting the TFA is a long on going debate, there are entire essays on it, WP:NOPRO and Wikipedia:For_and_Against_TFA_protection. Personally I think we should protect it because it's nothing but a vandal target and good editors waste time fighting it--but all that's a separate issue. But back to the issue at hand. You asked for this review yourself, and to me that says enough, and speaks to your integrity. You have always been civil and I've never seen you abuse the admin bit. Just learn from this and move on. Rlevse 02:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that you acted in good faith, that this appears to have been an isolated dispute, and that no further action is needed. Newyorkbrad 02:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Good faith actions undertaken in the quest to better the encyclopedia are never discouraged. I disagree with you that protection is the best course of action to take (and I'll explain why a bit further on AN/I hopefully later tonight), but that has no bearing on your judgment or your administrative actions. Keep on keeping on. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• I think you were not correct to protect, but it was not altogether unreasonable, and your good faith is obvious. DGG (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• I have always found you to act reasonably and responsibly. I support you here and believe you have acted in complete good faith.Smatprt 03:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with the other users here. It is clear that you were acting in good faith. I don't personally feel that the protection was warranted, but I don't think you were out of your mind for doing it. While I may have disagreed with your particular action in this instance, I see no pattern of incompetence or malfeasance. Your continued access to sysop tools furthers the interests of the project. ➪HiDrNick! 04:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Personally I believe that there is no case for a misuse of admin. powers here. The William Shakespeare article has always been a target for vandals and you have done everything possible to fight those who vandalize said article. I can understand that being linked to the main page would attract more vandals and that a semi-protect in this particular case on your behave was an act of good-faith and not bad-faith. I support you because you have proven to be one of the best editors and admins in the pedia. Tony the Marine 05:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• There was no abuse of admin powers, and there is very rarely any "abuse" - people confuse "mistake" with "abuse" a lot around here. You obviously felt strongly about the article remaining pristine, to the extent of preventing editing during the day it was featured (and a lot of improvement can come from anons when an article is featured, as well as an opportunity to bring in new users), and perhaps should have recused yourself from making any decisions about protection or unprotection. Neil ム 08:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  Looking back, that sounds a little harsh - just to clarify, I have no concerns that your actions were taken in anything other than good faith, and I don't think there's any need for any kind of restrictions or any such nonsense. Neil ム 10:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• There is no problem that I am aware of with your use of admin powers in general. In the very specific case in question, I realise that having an article you have worked hard on be the FA is a bit like being asked to stand in front of an automatic staple gun for 24 hours. This said, any vandalism to the FA is usually removed within seconds or minutes, and is nothing to be concerned with. There is genuine value in asserting and demonstrating the openness of the encyclopedia and the project. Your close involvement probably gave you a lower threshold for such things than would usually be the case and so it would likely have been better to leave repeated decision-making of that kind to the admin corps at large. Your actions were entirely good-faith based, however, and you need have no worries about your adminning in general. Splash - tk 09:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• You did fine. There is always a clash between admins on the issue of how much a page should be protected, and there is a wide range of views about front-page protection. It's no big deal. Thanks for all your efforts against the vandals yesterday.qp10qp 10:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• You did good. Keep up the good work. Nothing to worry about from my perspective. WAVY 10 Fan 12:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• SouthernNights is an excellent editor who I've had a lot of contact with over the last two years because we're interested in editing some of the same topics. He always uses his admin powers with civility and good sense. Even if his judgement call was wrong (on which I don't have an opinion, and I don't even feel there IS a demonstrably correct opinion) he exercised that judgement for a good reason and in good faith. He has my support. Is it time to close this discussion per WP:SNOW, yet? AndyJones 12:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• I was surprised to see the article protected so often, especially when the levels of vandalism seemed low for a Main Page FA. While the page was on the Main Page, you should have left the decision whether to protect or not up to other admins - you were clearly too involved to be objective. The issue of whether the article should have been protected as much as it has been before and after it was on the Main Page is another issue, and one that should also be examined, IMO. It is important to get the trade-off right between vandalism and allowing interested new editors to edit constructively. Having said that, I would echo the views of others that this was a good-faith mistake (the loss of objectivity - not the decision about when to protect, which is a much more subjective thing) and nothing to get worried about. Learning from mistakes is the important thing. The next time an FA you have been involved in appears on the Main Page, I am sure you will have learnt from this and will recognise when you need to recuse from a decision like page protection. Carcharoth 13:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  Oh, and thanks for starting this review - that in itself shows a high level of integrity. I also liked Splash's staple gun analogy! :-) Carcharoth 13:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Nods, I'd snow this one. Good sysop, minor dispute. Durova^Charge! 14:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• I think it would be a tremendous loss for Wikipedia for you to give up your sysop bit - and I'm the one who wrote the guideline that you violated (that you shouldn't protect the daily featured article. Raul654 14:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• One more with the chorus. You were wrong, but it was debatable, and even more important, you were civil at all times and eventually accepted that the consensus was against you. Being nice when you are wrong is all we can ask for, we can't demand being right all the time, it would be beyond human. Carry on. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Echoing the chorus above. I think your protection of the article went against the accepted guidelines, and I would hope that you don't do so in future but I have no other issues with your admin actions. We have not to my knowledge interacted before but you seem to do a good job - the comments from those above with more experience of you strongly support that. I don't think there any need for wider review - this was a one off incident - and I hope you don't think I was ever calling for such a review. I certainly don't think you acted in bad faith either. WjBscribe 19:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Who in the hell thinks that you abused power is ridiculous! what administrators stated that you abused power? Ignore some of these clowns! 149.68.105.27 17:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Clowns? Where? <looks round> Ah. You've been looking in the mirror, I see. :-) Seriously, this was an exemplary review, with thoughtful comments. But I suppose a little soupcon of unneeded, redlinked outrage may spice things up a bit, but I don't think that was your intention. Carcharoth 00:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's not serious abuse, and in fact, I believe it is necessary, since the William_Shakespeare page is vandalized often.  Involuntary_instance  talk  22:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who commented and gave feedback on this issue. I will keep all of this in mind. Sincerely, --SouthernNights 17:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

		Ready to swab the deck!
		Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman Talk 02:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright resolution

Dear SouthernNights -

I was unable to find a method of communicating with you other than this... In your position as "veteran editor," you deemed my biographical material a "copyright violation" and deleted my bio from Wikipedia in 2006. On your user page you instruct users facing such deletions to insert an "authorship" notation on the page with which you asserted there was a copyright violation. I have done that. Could you please restore my material? Although I am certainly not a copyright expert as you are, I'm quite sure it is not a copyright violation to self-use material from a web site (or sites) completely created and authored by oneself without having to insert on every page of every such web page/site a gift-of-citation to Wikipedia. Perhaps self-citation is a violation of some Wikipedia rule (with which I am not familiar), but it's not a copyright violation. (There is no need to reply if you prefer not to waste your time. I don't frequent your user page to seek conversation. But I would, truly, appreciate your restoring my bio.) With deepest respect, thank you for your time and attention. Ralph Begleiter (real name, not pseudonym) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbegleiter (talk • contribs) 18:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct--using your own material is not a copyright violation. However, Wikipedia sets its own rules with regards to our use of copyrighted material. The most accurate way for us to know that you are indeed the copyright owner of some text on a particular website, and to make sure we are using GFDL-copy, is for you to insert that statement on your own webpages. If you don't want to do that, feel free to recreate your article using original text. However, you should also know that many editors here frown upon people creating articles about themselves and may try to delete the article b/c of that. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more.--SouthernNights 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. So, I have added the text you requested to the page you deleted. What else do I have to do to inspire you to restore it (you didn't mention any other "conditions")? And, would your reply also mean that the following page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SouthernNights) should be deleted by Wikipedia editors because it is an "article about yourself?" Somehow I doubt it (and I don't advocate it). In short, I suppose my question is: There are lots of bios on Wikipedia. They do not all appear to be written by others. But would the solution be to have "someone else" create the page? Surely this can't be a "new" problem. Thanks again. (not "unsigned") Ralph Begleiter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.80.208 (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be snarky and sarcastic, please do it elsewhere. If you had taken the time to read up on Wikipedia guidelines and policies, you would see that user pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SouthernNights are different from creating an article about yourself. Anyway, I've restore your article at Ralph Begleiter. As for your other question, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest basically says that instead of creating an article about yourself, other editors should do that chore. But it's not an absolute rule and has been broken many times; as a result, we just try to manage the process the best we can. Best, --SouthernNights 12:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

David Shear's daughter

I just wanted to make sure you saw this: [2] Raul654 04:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My School's IP

I am contacting you to tell you that the IP 204.38.47.182 is for my school and almost every time I access Wikipedia, the school is blocked from editing because another student has vandalized a page (or to prove at point at times, teachers). I am suggesting that you permanentaly ban this ip from editing to save the people that clean up a lot of work. Ketchuphed 21:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been to User talk:204.38.47.182 and added a template indicating it is owned by the Saginaw Intermediate School District, Saginaw, Michigan. There does seem to be a steady pattern of abuse during every month school is in session. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Lupin is MIA

Hi. I've noticed that Lupin has not edited since Sept. 5 and am concerned. No indication of a deliberate break. Since you have some experience checking in with users, I thought I'd mention it. No obligation. You may know of Lupin as the author of useful popups and antivandal scripts. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 19:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could help but I don't have enough info. However, after looking at Lupin's edit history is appears breaks like this aren't uncommon.--SouthernNights 19:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Curly Joe the Puppet Deletion

I had just completed a fairly thorough article titled Curly Joe the Puppet when I found you had already placed it up for a speedy deletion based on the fact that it did not assert it's importance. I was curious why you felt that way and placed my reasoning in the discussion page (as well as making a very small edit to the page itself). To find the reasoning, here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Curly_Joe_the_Puppet.

Like I stated in the discussion page this character has gained national attention and has fans throughout the nation. I feel this page was important and needed to be put up. Within the article itself I thought I had supplied as much information as I needed to on it's importance. I didn't want the article to be about why people should know about Curly Joe, instead I thought it was more important to put up information about him.

If you have any suggestions on how I should modify the article to provide this information or any other necessary information, then I would gladly make any changes.

I thank you for your time and request the permission to recreate this page, Soli Deo Gloria 14:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a personal website to promote items of little notability. For more on this, see Wikipedia:Notability. If you wish to appeal this, feel free to. But I'm just not seeing where this puppet has the notability to warrant an encyclopedia article. Best, --SouthernNights 14:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not using wikipedia to try and promote a business or hobby of mine (the videos aren't even mine) as you suggest. I and many with whom I spoke felt that this character and the many associated videos which have, as I already said, begun to gain national attention are worthy of an informative article. My interest is simply in furthering wikipedia and expanding its content. I do not wish to see this article permanently blocked so I will not at this time, recreate the article. I do however believe that it is only a matter of time before an article will be created by another of the characters and the associated movies many fans.

Disappointed with your conclusion, Soli Deo Gloria 16:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Burning questions

I've got two, and since you're an admin and I know you, I figured I'd ask you. 1) How do I delete pages from my userspace? and 2)How do you move a page to a another page that already exists as, say, a redirect? Wrad 23:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me know what user pages you want deleted and I'll handle that. As for moving pages, use the move tab at the top of the page you wanted moved. If you have any problem with that let me know and I'll assist.--SouthernNights 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, could you delete these? User:Wrad/Sandbox3, User:Wrad/byulead. Wrad 15:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Done.--SouthernNights 17:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians

Hi, I really like the page a lot. I do feel however it would be better at the multilingual meta.wikimedia rather than here on en.wikipedia. -- Cat ^chi? 20:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for creating a mirror Deceased Wikipedians there. I'd thought several times about doing that but I wasn't familiar enough with meta.wikimedia to know where to put it. One question: do we maintain the english version or simply redirect to the meta site?--SouthernNights 21:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

We can simply use {{Softredirect}} on wikipedia side. All information should be kept in one location. -- Cat ^chi? 21:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also moved left over images to commons. En.wikipedia copies should be deleted. -- Cat ^chi? 21:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I now see that you brought up a MfD on the item. I don't have a problem with having the memorial page on meta and a redirect to that works for me. However, I see Newyorkbrad's point and we can leave both of them up for now. I'll just be sure to update and watch the meta page along with this English WP page.Best, --SouthernNights 21:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The MfD was merely intended to gather consensus for the move (well I have done it in a bold manner anyways). The intention was not a delete at all, if you check my nomination I make no mention of a delete. It would be very demanding to pay attention to seperate discussions on two wikis. We will end up having parallel discussions on same topics. -- Cat ^chi? 22:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My talk, userpage, etc

When I first joined Wikipedia, we were encouraged during the account set up process to use our real names to add credibility, so in good faith I lent mine to this project. In my years here I mediated many disputes, most of them in the confidentiality of e-mails. I tried to protect minority opinions by coming to the aid of users with unpopular opinions and stop them from being railroaded by mob rule; even when I did not share their opinions. I contributed much of my free time to this project for years; most of it dedicated to mediation. I do not agree with the path Wikipedia has taken, but I did not go to some hostile forum and whine about it or write some tell all blog of all the behind the scene drama I saw; I just left.

Yet even in retirement, I am not left alone. My talk page exists for one reason alone; that its history is still accessible to average users. My talk page is protected and clearly states that I am no longer active; yet bots and admins still post on the page. Since I still have friends at Wikipedia, this is eventually brought to my attention, and once that is done, I feel obligated to respond and because I voluntarily gave up my administrator privileges—so that my account would not be too dangerous if compromised—I cannot remove the clutter or respond on the page.

I am also saddened to see that my work here is considered sub-standard and that as “the founder of Esperanza” I am seem to be a greater boogie man to some than WillyOnWheels, whose vandalism so many admins—myself included—fought against. I realize that since I was here so long and served in various positions, blanking or deleting my user page would leave a particularly bothersome red link.

Therefore, I request that my user page and its history be deleted and replaced with a brief and fair synopsis of my time here and that the protection of my talk page as an archive be enforced. I believe I have been more than patient in responding when someone contacts me, thus I do not feel that after this post I am obligated to provide my e-mail to Wikipedia or respond to queries on my talk page.

During my time here, I had my share of personality conflicts and disagreements over article content, but I resolved most of them on my own. I never went before ArbCom nor was I a Request For Comment ever filed against me. I endeavored to treat other users with respect; even if I sometimes failed. I do not feel it is unreasonable that I ask to be treated the same. -JCarriker 21:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that this is causing you so much pain. I will delete your user page, per your request, then recreate it with a brief synopsis of your time here. I will also keep a close eye on your talk page and delete anything that appears there. As always, I wish you the best in your personal life.--SouthernNights 00:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That sucks. I think I missed all of this, but then I'm not terribly active. Guettarda 01:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I am of course dissapointed that my work is not appreciated, but it is more a pain in the posterior than any deep emotional pain. It is only natural that when one generation fades another moves in to remake things in their own image; doesn't mean I want a front seat though. Which is somewhat hard as some misguided Wikipedians still seek my advice on Skype from time to time. Seems they are under the impression that I actually knew what I was doing. "Lord, what fools these mortals be!"

Anyway, I wish you the best in your personal life as well. (Guettarda too!) As to my personal life there is a certain problem with pink lips, olive eyes, and honey colored hair; alas, I should probably solve that problem myself. Cheers. -JCarriker 06:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

General articles

I really don't have a clue as to what you may think of this, but I'm proposing a General article WikiProject per the discussion going on at FAC. The project proposal is here. I'd love to have you join if you think you can help improve general articles on wikipedia in any way. Please take a look at the proposal and the discussion at FAC (linked to from the proposal. Wrad 01:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. While I do see the need to improve this type of article here, I wonder if it isn't too, well, general (pun intended, but intent serious). One of the strengths of Wikiprojects is that it binds editors with similar interests together. I wish you the best with this but I think I'll have to pass. --SouthernNights 01:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm looking for people with a binding interest in general things (generalists? I'm sure they're out there), but thanks for considering. Wrad 01:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lyran Star Empire

The article was deleted after you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyran Star Empire back in September. The article has been recreated (with the same problems). I have had it speeded twice (first by WP:CSD#G4, and again by WP:CSD#CSD G6), but it keeps getting recreated. Should I take it to AfD a second time? --Gavin Collins 09:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No need. I've deleted the article and added it to the list of protected pages. Let me know if there is any more problems with it. Best, --SouthernNights 15:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A few weeks back, this page was AfD'd and I recreated it solely as a redirect (to Alpha Octant) to be precise. A few days ago, an anon editor restored the page to pre-AfD status. It was speedily deleted, and after which I recreated the prior redirect. Afterwards, the same user recreated the page again. Now it has been deleted again, and protected from recreation. I would like to have the original redirect restored if at all possible. Personally, I would like to try and recreate the page in a format that may be acceptable to the editors of Wikipedia, but today is not the time and I had nothing to do with the recreations of the last few days. I thank you for your time. --Donovan Ravenhull 18:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I forgot that you'd done that. I'll recreate the redirect then protect it.--SouthernNights 22:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare notes section

I think you misunderstood Chris Cunningham on the Shakespeare talk page. He wasn't the one who merged the notes and references section. He had a very different idea. He wanted to separate the documents into a new sort of Bibliography section, like the one in the Hamlet article, where footnotes outline page numbers and authors only, and a References section lists full bibliographic info. Wrad 21:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Appears I did misunderstand him. Your proposed idea on the article works for me.--SouthernNights 22:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Analogy

Hey SouthernNights, I apologize profusely if I offended you at all. I understand your oppose at my RfA; I've replied to your note and hope you will reconsider. Thanks. GlassCobra 15:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on your RfA. Thanks for the thoughtful explanation you gave there. Best,--SouthernNights 16:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar

Thanks for the Barnstar for the work on the Peace Corps article. Reservoirhill 15:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

GlassCobra's RfA

		My RFA
		Hey SouthernNights! I wanted to thank you for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 61 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I wanted to apologize again if I offended you at all, and hope we can put this past us. Please feel free to call on me if you ever need any help or opinions! GlassCobra 02:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I wish you the best as an admin and if I can likewise every be of assistance, don't hesitate to let me know. Best, --SouthernNights 18:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

JCarriker

Do you know (or maybe better said, are you comfortable divulging) why JCarriker left Wikipedia? I noticed the short bio you put up on his user page, but wasn't around when he decided to leave - too bad, as he was a great editor. Figured you'd be the one to ask. Tijuana Brass 04:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

He gave personal reasons. Wish I could be more specific, but I can't.--SouthernNights 04:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I figured as much - I understand. Glad you left something good to remember him by. Tijuana Brass 05:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest SouthernNights,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words, strong support, and defense of my character are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow and Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.

Lara❤Love 06:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes

I have responded further. Would you please come back, read my response and remove that unjustified banner. It is always very easy for people to get the idea that a negative response to something must be an essentially lop-sided one. It is not the case. In this instance the power, the prestige and the credibility of the Vatican and its institutions make it hard to believe that a whole bunch of angry artists and critics could be right, but it is demonstrably correct. The old guys that worked on the frescoes in the 1930s warned them that Michelangelo had painted a secco, but they ignored the best advice they were given.

But its not even a case of right and wrong- it's a case of no response. I can't quote what they have answered to the question of why they washed off the eyes and the details. Their only answer is to point out that we can see the colours.

I have now written a bit more about the three stage process that they used. The removal of the paint was a separate process to the removal of the dirt.

As I have said before, I came at this from a point of complete neutrality. But as soon as I read the criticisms, I saw with my own eyes that they were correct. Moreover, when I read what the head of the team wrote, I saw how far what they did deviated from "best practices" ie the procedures that were actually laid down by their very own department in the 1970s and remain at the forefront of good conservation practice.

My reporting of this disaster is not biased. From the point of view of an art historian and student of Michelangelo and one is conversant with accepted international conservation practices and standards, I want the tag removed.

Amandajm (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on the article talk page.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

JCarriker's user page

While this is perhaps a petty detail, the user page states that Marshall, Texas is a featured article. This is no longer true. Should the user page be somehow updated to reflect this, or should it remain as it is? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll update the page in a day or two. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Curly Joe Puppet from the dead

I listed Curly Joe Puppet on AFD here. Thought I should let you know as you speedied the article earlier. Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Help

User:Brian0324 and Anietor continue to rollback a new paragraph I added in the article Christianity in China, and by contrast they rollback their POV. I've tagged them in their talk page, but please help me! --Xi Zhu (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh...there are actually at least 3 editors trying to get Xi Zhu to discuss his edits, but he just inserts them, usually as POV unsourced material. He then keeps vandalizing our user talk pages. He's going to get blocked if he keeps doing that, and all we want to do is engage him in a discussion. If you can get him to calm down and discuss, that would be appreciated! Thanks. --Anietor (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 04:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Robert Guisepi

There has been a slanderous section added to the bottom of the page regarding me claiming I have ties with organized crime. I tried to remove it but you added it back. I have never had any association with criminals and I want this bullshit removed NOW!!!!

Robert Anthony Guisepi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.16.85 (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

My apology for the mistake. I misread your edit and thought you had entered that defamatory information. My intent had been to remove it but I messed up. Anyway, I'll keep an eye on the article and if anyone tries to reinsert that info I'll remove it or protect the article to keep that info out. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: I also went into the page's history and removed all trace of that defamatory information.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.16.85 (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand!

Please could you tell me why my new page has been immediately deleted? Am i meant to completely finish the page before posting? thanks for your input.--Nayfesj (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop

Why did you re-delete the article I restored and PRODDED. There is an assertion of notability. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The article does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and is a candidate for speedy deletion. Once an article is speedy deleted (which this one was) it is not appropriate to then recreate and relabel the article for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. If an article is put on the PROD path beforehand, that's fine, but not after the article is already deleted.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, where was the assertion of notability? I didn't see a holdon tag or anything raised on the article's talk page before I deleted it.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to restore and PROD if I feel that it was speedy deleted incorrectly - which I do. Where did you get the interpretation of once-deleted-deleted-forever from. The assertion of notability is in being past governor of Rotary International. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no once deleted, forever deleted. What I object to is you not following the PROD guidelines. As it specifically states at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, articles that "Have previously been undeleted" are not candidates for PROD. So once you undeleted the article, you should not have placed the PROD template on it. Anyway, are you opposing the deletion? If so, then the article is again not a candidate for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and should be immediately brought up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I'd support recreating the article for an AfD. Otherwise, if you don't object to the article's deletion, I stand by the fact that this is a candidate for speedy deletion. So do you want to do an AFD on it? --SouthernNights (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

→ agreed, no fighting desired --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No ... no hard feelings ... these things happen and we came out of it well. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Previously been undeleted comment

I understand what you mean about this point. However, I had converted to PROD before you deleted it the first time. I will bring up at the Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion a clarification of that point because I have generally interpreted that particular line as applying to articles that have at some point in their lifespans been deleted by a non-Speedy method. For instance, if an article was PROD-deleted, resurrected, speedy deleted, resurrected - no, it should not go through PROD again; likewise for AFD or other 'discussion enabling' fora. In other words, it is meant to cover undeletion cases where more than a single person has been party to the deletion action; my interpretation in this manner is based on the notion that 'first speedy' isn't a binding decision, but rather a fast-action where consensus would seem to be obvious in the matter. Like I said, I will bring up this particular point on the talk page before I act on anything else in this manner. It is something that is good to get clarity on. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Question put at talk page for PROD

The input at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#Question regarding applicability to undeleted content stems from our interaction here. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Bringing up at AFD

No, let's let this sleeping dog lie. The primary reason why I wanted to PROD it was to allow for that small but significant window of time to pass where an objection might be raised based on the assertion of notability (my perception of an assertion). I think that it would likely pass through PROD 'unfixed', otherwise I would actually have taken it right to AFD rather than going PROD (as PROD is for items perceived as uncontroversial in their deletion). Consider this ... if PROD is for uncontroversial deletions and Speedy is also for uncontroversial deletions, why are the two mechanisms existing side by side rather than only one. Because PROD provides a mechanism for addressing doubt whereas Speedy does not (except through 'hangon' which is, in my opinion, not easy to use because of the rapidity of deletion in most cases). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this issue out for other people to comment on. Getting a consensus on the issue will clear up the murkiness around the issue. BTW, after looking at the edit times on the article it appears you sent it back to PROD at the same time I was examining it for speedy delete. Since I didn't refresh my cache at that point, I didn't realize you had changed it to PROD. Hope there's no hard feelings here b/c I think the whole situation was a simple disagreement over procedure. Hopefully this discussion will clarify the issue. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

His outside-the-box thinking

the info in the article was very good, but it wasn't supposed to be in a seperate article. I merged the info into Billy Martin, where it belonged. I wanted to welcome the creator and tell him that the article was merged, but as the page was deleted, I don't know who the creator was. Can you tell me who the creator was? Or you can just welcome him and tell him that his article was merged? best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Bjrbbhaw81 created the article. Feel free to tell him about the merge. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Did you mistakenly welcome him on his userpage?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah. Figured I'd also pass a welcome to him. --SouthernNights (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant that you welcomed him on his userpage, not his talkpage.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for catching that.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Chat

Hey Jason, how you been? How was your Christmas and New Year? I want to wish you a belated Happy New Year. I haven't been very active, except that I'm working on "Hispanics in the USMC". Last Nov. I received a unexpected recognition from the government of Puerto Rico which I want to share with you. Check it out here:Press Releases. So, let me know what you have been up to. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony: I'm doing well. I saw that press release last week and was really happy for you. You've done a ton of great work around here and I'm glad you are being recognized for it. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Tales of MU

Where did this article go? This morning, the brand new article Tales of MU had just been proposed for deletion, and this was being actively discussed, a process that is supposed to take 5 days. Tonight, the article has gone. Apparently you deleted it as 'Not notable'.

Firstly, the article was only created last night. Initially it was pretty much a stub without external references, but within hours SEVERAL different people had worked on it, (real people not sock puppets), and it was already much improved. Someone else was looking up web stats to show the number of people who read the Tales, and there were other suggestions for improving the page further and demonstrating its notability. The Guidelines even say that an inadequate new page should be improved rather than deleted (except for vandalism etc. of course). The Tales of MU page was not a vanity page; the Tales of MU author had not contributed to the page at all, and as far as I can tell now without the edit log, all the people editing were unconnected except for being readers of Tales of MU.

Yet you deleted it. Why? Where has the discussion gone? Where does it say a conclusion was reached? How can a speedy deletion be justified when an existing deletion discussion was already under way, and in any case how can anyone create a new article if people propose deletion as soon as it appears, before anyone has had time to get the new article up to full Wikipedia standards? The guidelines specifically advise against doing that, but it seems to be common practice.

I'm a regular user of Wikipedia, and have also edited the occasional article where I see a typo or other minor error which I can safely correct. I have not registered a user name, but am 'dww' on DMOZ, where I have been an editor for several years. I tell you this to show that I'm not some net newbie or an anonymous complainer. I have to say this incident leaves a sour taste. I hope it was a mistake that can be rectified, or else that there was a good reason in the discussion which can be read somewhere. And it needs to be a reason why the Wikipedia users are better off without this article, not just why an editor doesn't like it. --dww —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.210.10 (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to bring the article up for an Articles for deletion discussion, I'd be happy to recreate the article for that purpose. However, you should know that the article was up for speedy deletion and, after examining the article and the talk page discussion, I decided it was a valid candidate for speedy delete due to the subjects lack of notability. Also, per Wikipedia guidelines, the criteria for deleting an article isn't whether or not " Wikipedia users are better off without this article" but whether or not the article's subject matter meets our notability guidelines. Anyway, if you want the article to go through an AfD. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Re Sango

Highly doubtful because of this. Not correct name. [3].--Sandahl 16:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I was being polite, but I'm almost certain this is not true.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't true thankfully.--Sandahl 16:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what has happened to her though? No edits since 1st October 2006, vanished without a trace... Majorly (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of hatnote on WP:DIED

Hi,

You recently removed the hatnote I added to WP:DIED without comment. I added this because it took me a good few minutes of searching for the appropriate article dealing with WP's own stance on obituary articles; Wikipedia:Obituary redirects to that article. This seems as good a reason to add a hatnote to what would seem to be an obvious shortcut as any. What gives? Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to remove that hatnote without comment--my bad for forgetting to add that in. But when I first saw that hatnote at the top of this memorial article, it seemed like an attack on the whole idea of WP:Deceased Wikipedians. While I later realized this was not the case, I'm afraid the odds are many people will take it the way I did. I'd prefer to find other ways to help people find WP:MEMORIAL, such as by changing some of the redirects. Perhaps we could change Wikipedia:Obituary to redirect to WP:MEMORIAL? Would that work for you?--SouthernNights (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That'd work fine. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Later Klan

Thanks for your encouraging comments on my additions and edits. --Parkwells (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for helping to improve the article. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you...

...for your support in my recently closed Request for Adminship. I am more than a bit stunned by the outcome, which appears to have finished at 146 supports, no opposes, and one abstention. I am particularly grateful to Keilana and Kingboyk for their recent encouragement, and most specifically to Pastordavid, for having seen fit to nominate me. I also want to make it very clear to everyone that I have no intentions of changing my name again, so the servers should be safe for a while.

In the event you ever believe that I would ever able to assist in the future, I would be honored if you were to contact me regarding the matter. I can't guarantee results, unfortunately, but I will do what I can. Thank you again.

By the way, I know the image isn't necessarily appropriate, but I am rather fond of it, and it at least reflects the degree of honor I feel at the result. And it's hard to go wrong with a Picture of the Year candidate.

Now, off to a few last tasks before starting work in earnest on the various templates I promised I'd work on.

This RfA thanks inspired by Kathryn McDinaha's, in turn inspired by several others after Phaedriels' original. Hoping we can all keep such inspiration of newcomers ongoing, I am, sincerely, John Carter (talk).

John Carter (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My RFA

First off, I would like to make it clear that User:Sobar is not a sockpuppet of me. We are from the same town, and just communicate a lot. Due to that, I was afraid that a member of my family may patrol my talk page (which I later found out they did), and find his comments like those of an Internet predator (no offense to Sobar, who is not). This is the reason why I removed the comments. Hope that helped. STORMTRACKER 94 18:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Braintwister.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Braintwister.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching Re-confirmation

Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the Wikipedia:Admin coaching project. We are currently conducting a reconfirmation drive to give coaches the opportunity to update their information and capacity to participate in the project. Please visit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to update your status and move your entry to the Active list. Also, please remember to update your capacity (5th table variable) in the form of a fraction (eg. 2/3 means you are currently coaching 2 students, and could accept 1 more student). Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Imperial triple crown jewels

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Imperial triple crown jewels upon SouthernNights for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FA. Cirt (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on the featured content, very comprehensive articles and thus not that easy to help bring to FA status. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:GertrudeBarrowsBennett.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:GertrudeBarrowsBennett.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bibliography of Charles Dickens

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bibliography of Charles Dickens, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? – Psyche825 _(talk) 23:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

James Young Deer

On 30 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Young Deer, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:77.97.75.68

Nice work. --John (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We aim to please. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dan Schneider (writer)

I have nominated Dan Schneider (writer), an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Schneider (writer) (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Guy (Help!) 20:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians

I have nominated Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 16:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that AfD didn't last long.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

al franken and serena williams

i keep getting flagged for information that i have edited on these two people...first for putting that serena williams weighs 185 lbs...i know her official biography states 150, but i met her a few weeks ago at a party here in new york and she personally told me she typically weighs anywhere between 185 to 190 lbs depending on her training and whatnot...also, i have had sex with al franken and i am a man..i think that makes him a homosexual...i just want people to know...thanks for your consideration —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.49.59 (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: George M. Lowry

It looks really good, nice work. I made two very small changes to the references. I combined some repeated citations and I changed the homeofheroes.com ref to a U.S. Army Center of Military History one. I've found homeofheroes to be comprehensive and accurate, but it is a personal website run by a single guy, so the Army website is more in line with WP:RS. If you want to take the article further, maybe good article status, then I'd suggest expanding on the areas outside of the MOH action. He seems to have been fairly prominent in his later career, so there should be sources out there for those areas, although it might take some digging. Happy editing, — jwillbur 16:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps of Mark Kellogg (reporter)

The article Mark Kellogg (reporter), for which you seem to be primarily responsible, is undergoing a review as part of the good article sweeps project. There are a couple of things that need to be addressed, and the article has been put on hold for a week. Please have a look, and thanks for you work so far! Lampman (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare's Influence

Hello SouthernNights. Upon seeing that you reverted my edits to the Shakespeare's influence article, I perused your user page and saw that you were the originator of this article. No doubt you feel a special pride, and a special responsibility to protect it.

Please understand: I was not trying to harm the article; I was trying to improve it. It is official Wikipedia policy that unsubstantiated, implausible claims should be aggressively weeded out. Among the things coming from the Jayne Aden paper: "Shakespeare used around 20,138 new words." This strikes me as bordering on patent nonsense. Depending on how it's counted, this is more than Shakespeare's entire working vocabulary. The Shakespeare's influence article itself says earlier that "It is widely assumed that Shakespeare himself introduced more words into English than all the other writers of his time combined, over 1,700 by some estimates." The figure 20,138 is off by an order of magnitude!

No, I do not think Jayne Aden's paper was ever a legitimate source. She is not a Shakespearean scholar; she was an undergraduate at Black Hills State University at the time she wrote the paper. Of course, this doesn't necessarily disqualify the paper -- undergraduates do sometimes get their research published in journals. But I don't think Aden's paper was ever published. It was a paper for a course, English 426 (History and Structures of English), taught by one Roger Ochse. It seems he put his students' papers up on the web, but he's no longer a faculty member there and the link is no longer active.

If this were a dead link to a journal article, I would understand that it's still a legitimate source. Because in that case, it's verifiable; one can go find the journal and read the article, and presumably the article was peer-reviewed. This is not the case here. For all we know, this paper literally no longer exists. And I don't see any evidence that it was a legitimate scholarly work to begin with. My objection is, I think, a reasonable one -- and the burden of proof rests on you, not me. (You claim it's an acceptable resource. Back up your claim.)

I have no interest in getting involved in an edit war with you, or getting emotionally involved. I will respect that this is "your turf". I was simply trying to improve Wikipedia... I think it's a shame if you are unwilling to let change come to an article that badly needs to be changed. Believe me, with references like Aden's paper this article will never be featured article material. Kier07 (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you're overthinking why I reverted the edit. Personally I agree that the reference is a weak one and that the info on the number of words created by Shakespeare is closer to 1700. While I created the article, I sure as heck didn't enter that reference or information (my original version is far shorter and lacks those sections altogether, as seen here).

The reason I reverted your edit is two fold: First, your edit summary mentioned only the dead link issue, which isn't a valid reason to remove a reference. Second, aside from the wrong estimate of created words, the other information you removed appears to be correct, even if the reference is weak. I don't think it is proper to remove information and a reference without providing a better reference to replace it. If you want to remove the word count, please simply provide a new estimate and a reference to back it up. As for the other info, feel free to rewrite that section as you please as long as you provide a new reference to back things up. But simply removing a citation and info, then placing a "citation needed" tag on that section, is not how I prefer to edit. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you. Of course the dead link issue is a valid reason to remove the reference. Without the link, THERE IS NO REFERENCE -- for all intents and purposes, the paper no longer exists. Perhaps much of the information is valid. From what little I know about Shakespeare, it seemed that way to me. But it seems to me there are essentially two categories of information on Wikipedia -- obvious, essentially not-debatable information, and information which does not follow from common knowledge and common sense, and therefore needs to be referenced. Most of the information, and certainly the quotes, coming from Jayne Aden's paper fall into the second category. They need to be referenced. By posting a link that doesn't work, we're pretending the claims are referenced, which they are not. This is dishonest.

Nor does it matter if the paper still exists. The information should never have been added in the first place, regardless of whether it "appears correct". Verisimilitude is not the metric by which information is added to Wikipedia -- claims are supposed to be represented in direct proportion to the extent to which they are supported by authoritative sources. I can understand keeping the information that seems correct, but a citation IS needed. Giving an unacceptable or nonexistent reference is worse than giving none at all.

I will probably not look through the Shakespearean literature to find better sources backing up the claims in the article, for the simple reason that I'm not that seriously interested in Shakespeare. I merely hoped that by tagging unreferenced information with citation needed, someone more involved in this area would be induced to find (legitimate, extant) references for the information. In fact, though we disagree on the priorities for improving an article, I do hope you yourself will find good sources for this information (and when you do, I hope you will remove the reference to Aden's paper). Best, Kier07 (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You should read up on Wikipedia citations here, where it states that if a citation's link goes dead, all you do is deactivate the link because "Even with an inactive link, the citation still records a source that was used, and provides a context for understanding archiving delays or for taking other actions." A citation with a dead link is still a valid citation. Anyway, since you're not interested in editing the article, I'll dig up the correct info on the number of new words Shakespeare created and provide a new link for that. But I'm going to leave the reference for the other info b/c it appears to be correct and, as I said, a weak reference is better than no reference. When either myself or another editor finds a stronger reference, we'll replace it.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey y'all!

We're going to be having our first Mississippi meetup next month, and I would love it if you'd like to come out! A few of us will be staying overnight, so if you feel up to it, we could have a meet and greet that night and then breakfast the next morning and talk about Wikipedia and everyone's areas of expertise. Let's show 'em how it's done Southern-style! Mike H. Fierce! 22:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Bath School disaster

Please read this comment and reply if you get a chance. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ellison_ralph.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ellison_ralph.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied on IFD page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Why are you undoing my correction on Perihan Magden's page?

It is simply not true that Perihan Magden was arrested. SIMPLY NOT TRUE! Without having a single line of evidence by what means are you undoing my correction? Prior I discussed the matter with Adoniscik and it seems that he had updated the text already but simply has forgotten to reflect the change in the subtitles. What I did is totally conforming with this updated context of the article.

I believe you owe me either an explanation or an apology. 144.122.42.221 (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If you don't explain about your edit in your edit summary or include a citation for the edit, people are likely to take changes like this as vandalism. A number of sources such as [4] alternately state that a warrant for her arrest was issued and/or that she was arrested. After you raised this issue, I search for more sources and have not found a definitive source to state whether or not she was arrested on this issue. Since this is unclear, I have no problem leaving the article as you rewrote it.

Again, when you make an edit to Wikipedia, you either need to provide a sources for your change or an edit summary stating why you made the change. We can't read minds around here.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Your words left on my talk page:

As I stated on my talk page, there is a question on whether or not the article's subject was arrested. Since there is a question of this, I'm fine with leaving the language as is. However, the insulting and attacking attitude you have is not acceptable. All this started because you deleted and changed information without explanation or citation, leading other editors to make a good faith evaluation that this was vandalism. If you had simply stated the information was not true, or provided a citation, we would have understood your edit. I strongly suggest you accept that all this as a simple misunderstanding. If you keep insulting and attacking people, you will be blocked.

My response:
a) I realize the misunderstanding and the reason for this (I should have attached an explanation to the editing, OK).
b) I have skimmed my 'talk' on your page (above) there is no attack no insult (just a demand for an explanation or apology), so, what 'insult' or 'attack' are you talking about?
c) I doubt that you have some 'canned responses' stressing 'blocking' to threaten people you are upset with, and you 'trim' them from case to case. Please don't do that. Not to me! Being a professor for years it is not something endurable to get threatened. I do not want to consider the 'contribution platform' of Wikipedia as a battle ground for civilized and educated man. 144.122.42.221 (talk)

Feliz Navidad

	<font=3> Wishing you a "Feliz Navidad and a Happy new Year" Tony the Marine (talk)

Man I've missed inter-acting with you here. How you been? I'm sorry for the late greeting, but my wife is hospitalized and that is where I spent my Christmas. Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

As I Lay Dying

Please do not change the redirect without prior discussion. It was agreed by both parties and an administrator to form a disambiguation. If you want to discuss this further go to Talk:As I Lay Dying (disambiguation) and wait till the discussion is over before making any changes. Also when discussing a resolved issue, please notify all parties involved as the parties involved are unlikely to view a resolved matter.

Also your edit summary "This should redirect to main article on novel, since that is the name source for all the other disambig links and is likely what people are searching for", the band is searched for literally 10 times more often and a redirect to the band would be better, as redirects are for accessibility. Jerry teps (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I raised the issue at Talk:As_I_Lay_Dying_(disambiguation). As I said there, the discussion was extremely limited and did not encompass enough editors to achieve true consensus. Before you can say you have "consensus" to go against a Wikipedia guideline such as at [5], you need to hold the discussion where editors will notice it. I mean, you didn't even link to this discussion on the novel's talk page, even though people there had discussed the issue. I have now started a new discussion at this link [6] to try and raise a true consensus on this issue. I have also placed notices about this discussion where people will notice it. I hope you will join in.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually you made the edit on As I Lay Dying 12 minutes before you raised the issue. Also, where did you get consensus to change it to a redirect? Jerry teps (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple consecutive edits

Hello SN- I saw your recent edits to the Harry Chapin page (and others) and wanted to remind you about the guidance at Help:Show_preview. Hope you don't mind the input. -Eric ^talk 04:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Short answer--don't be an insulting know-it-all.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't continually go around Wikipedia looking for editors to insult. Before making a comment like wanting "to remind you about the guidance at Help:Show_preview," check out the editor's contributions. For a new editor, this comment would be appropriate. But when you make the same comment to an editor who has made a ton of edits here, you come across as snitty and insulting. For the record, different Wikipedia editors have different editing styles. I tend to reread my edits over a period of minutes or hours and refine the copy. I use the preview button quite often but as with any editor, I still make mistakes which then have to be corrected. I should also note that the important thing around here is for people to make good, quality edits. If it takes them a few extra edits to achieve that goal, why worry about it. So in closing, don't be an insulting know-it-all, which is never a good quality in an editor.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You hope correctly, I don't look for editors to insult, and I did check out your contributions (that's what the (and others) referred to--sorry if that wasn't very clear). I certainly didn't mean to be insulting. You can say the same thing to two different people, and one will thank you while the other is offended, so I try to be matter-of-fact and neutral. Funny, I originally added that since you were such a prolific editor and an admin, I was surprised to see the edits every minute or two, which is usually something beginners do (including me). But then I took that out because I didn't want to come across wrong! Apparently I did anyway. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. -Eric ^talk 14:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to assume good faith in your comments. But they still came across as insulting and very much like a know-it-all. I mean, I simply don't see how it is any of your concern how myself or anyone else goes about improving Wikipedia, as long as we follow WP guidelines and the edits themselves are good.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. As irritated as I am by this, there's no need for bad blood here. I accept your apology and likewise apologize for being so in your face about this. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I had basically the same conversation with Eric a few days prior to this one. Altairisfar_talk 18:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Wallace (author)

I just stumbled upon this article, investigating the spamming of Dan Schneider reviews currently going on in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Dan_Schneider_inserting_spam_links_again. I have to say that I think the information should be removed from this article given the quality of the source and that the article has no other sources at all. You've disagreed with this multiple times in the past, but I haven't found any discussions about it. --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The spam issue is unrelated to using the interview with Wallace as a source. The spam issue with Dan Schneider involved people on both sides of the issue and tons of sock puppets. As for the interview, it is an interview with the article's subject and it provides quality, reliable information from a website which has gained a good deal of press coverage (including in the NY Times). I have no tolerance for people spamming wikipedia, but spamming a site doesn't make that site unreliable as a source of information. --SouthernNights (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. To be clear: I'm not arguing that it should be removed for the spamming, conflict of interest, or sockpuppetry problems that surround it. I'm saying that it's not a very good source, and no article should depend solely upon such a source. --Ronz (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree on that. The article needs other sources of information. But that's merely a problem with the quality of the article, not the source.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, though I'm not as sure of the value of keeping the information given what NPOV and OR tell us about such situations. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither NPOV and OR apply in this situation. Schneider is a published writer and critic who did interviews with notable people. --SouthernNights (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

undue weight to a single source and a primary source at that. I'd rather start by finding some sources to meet WP:BIO and work from there. --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree the article needs more sources. But again, that's a problem with the article, not with the source. I'll see if I can't find some more sources to balance out that article. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Spam report

I'm happy to qualify the list to make it clearer what's going on. I've found some very suspicious additions by very suspicious accounts of links that we haven't yet listed with the bot. I'm also getting very tired of the whole thing. --Ronz (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Schneider spam in Charles R. Johnson

I don't understand why you don't think this is a case of spamming. Both editors that added the links are clearly blatant spammers, Mitziohara (talk · contribs) and Filialprojector (talk · contribs). Filialprojector was blocked. Mitziohara somehow avioded being noticed as a spammer when the blocks were passed out. Because of this, I decided to remove the links. When I saw that you added them back, I presumed it was because you thought Filialprojector was not a spammer and should be listed in the checkuser request. Now that I realize he's already been blocked, I'm not sure what to make of the situation.

I do think this is a case where the interview is a useful reference, but there are other useful references as well. Singling out the one reference that way is problematic in itself, let alone when added by such editors.

Minimally, I think the repetition of the link in the External links section should be removed, and the article tagged with primary sources and single source tags. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm certain a spammer added that info. However, when I originally looked through the edits I thought it added to the article, so I put the info back in. --SouthernNights (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Good enough. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

James Harrison

Hi, I agree with your decision to semi-protect the article, but I'm going to try to unprotect it for a bit and watch it carefully. May have to re-protect it again but we'll see. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'd only protected it for 3 days, figuring that the vandalism would soon pass.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Aparajito spam

Why did you remove a link to a good article on this film and why is a robot removing my adding it back? There are links to other websites like DVDBeaver and that is a crappy review? The link I added is better and FAR more detailed than the one on that site of ReelViews. I am confused. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to link to relevant articles? Gumul (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well? Did you even read the article before considering it spam? Did you even compare its depth and writing to the other articles? It is so difficult to deal with you Westerners when it comes to the Subcontinent and its art. To be so dismissive about such a great film and such a great article. Why is it spam and the ReelViews not? It makes no sense. Why must you editors with an ax to grind always take it out on the quality articles? Aren't there enough articles on idiotic subjects to keep you content? Please, I ask of you to show me the kindness of a reply and an explanation. Without one I will just have to assume you are another snob who looks down at non-Western art and/or great work about them from "non-traditional" sources. Is that it? If this was from the Washington Post would it be "approvable" and not spam? Please reconsider and respond. Yours, Gumul (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I realize I may have been harsh in my tone. I apologize. But I see that you are an admin here, meaning you have greater powers than editors. Please, I am asking most kindly that you review my edit and explain to me why you have banned it. I still believe it is a quality good faith edit and do not understand why the article has been removed. Yours, Gumul (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Spam nonsense

I recently restored a link to an article on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Searchers_(film)

It is a quality link and meets all the Wikipedia external link requirements. Apparently there is some crusade on against this website and this author. In comments above mine I see that you became involved in this as well. Some time ago there seems to have been a concerted effort to remove links despite their easily qualifying via Wikipedia standards. A few months back I added a few links to some pages from this same author, who seems to be persona non grata.

In looking over the hubbub I see that you are one of the few sane people involved in this, so I turn to you. First, I am not the writer in question, Schneider. Second, not only is the link I added to The Searchers film page valid, but it is of a higher quality than the other links. Third, the person who reverts it is this user called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs

This person recently was rebuked as an admin and if you look at his application page you will see why: he is literally 13 years old and harassed anyone who disagreed with him. Fourth, not only is the revert silly because it fits the requirements, but the article contains a silly quote up top that IS against Wiki guidelines, yet it stays.

Again, in looking at your record you seem to see that many of these delinkings are unjustified. As an admin, something this Baseball Bugs editor is not, could you please look into this matter and see that the review I added was justified?

Also, in looking over prior edits, I see that other links I restored a while back were delinked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Proulx, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gates_of_Eden, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Bashevis_Singer

What is really insane is that in the Gates of Eden page some editor called Ronz not only delinked my linkage, but removed the whole link section. In looking over past edits though I see he is as unstable as Baseball Bugs.

Regards Belamorreia (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but there's nothing I can do about this. I'm not spending much time at all on Wikipedia and don't have the time to fight the idiots going to war over all these Schneider links. I wish I could help. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Spam nonsense

Belamorreia: I understand your frustration, but there's nothing I can do about this. I'm not spending much time at all on Wikipedia and don't have the time to fight the idiots going to war over all these Schneider links. I wish I could help. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I am archiving my talk page so that people don't leave messages here and then think I'm ignoring them. I rarely check this account. I'll leave this message here for a few days so you can see it, then I will also archive this. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Gertrude Barrows Bennett

Gertrude Barrows Bennett has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Jepp, i'll mark it as kept as GA. Good work, thanks! I only came upon the article from researching for the Gender in science fiction article, and GBB had a lot of mentions in the literature, so for a GA more needed to be written. I'll add anything else i find in the future.YobMod 11:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Request advice/assistance

Sirs: I am crossposting this request to these users. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lugnuts, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Girolamo_Savonarola, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SouthernNights The first two are users who head up the Wiki film articles. I have seen your names on hundreds of articles and appreciate your good and fair work. The last is a semi-retired (?) admin that I see has been involved in this sort of issue before.

As you can see from my edits I am a film fan too, but because of personal issues and work requirements I have precious little time to do much serious editing. Just a few snippets every few weeks. But, for every edit I’ve done I’ve read a hundred or more film based articles.

Recently I made some edits to this post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_strada I reverted an anonymous vandalism of the page wherein a good link to a fine essay was removed. The vandalism was done by an anonymous IP editor. When I restored the link another editor deleted it and claimed the link was spam.

A few months ago I got a silly warning/threat on my talk page saying that I was vandalizing and spamming pages because I restored another link or two. The issue seems to be the particular writer and source of the links. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Schneider_(writer) You will notice this page is under protection for vandalism by the admin I crosspost this too. After I was threatened as a spammer I looked into the history of this writer, etc., and saw that there have been numerous vandalisms and deletion attempts of the article, and mass reversions of links to articles by this writer. I cannot find it now, but I even saw that there was a list where my handle was included as a spammer thought to be the writer Dan Schneider.

This is very ridiculous. It seems to be a pattern that there is a war between anti-Schneider and pro-Schneider forces, and anyone who links to anything containing or referencing Schneider is threatened, banned or harassed. First I am not Dan Schneider. Second, in fact I first found out about Schneider’s film reviews thru Wikipedia. I think his reviews and website are great. But I have not indiscriminately linked to pieces. I simply have not the time to do so, and even if did have better things to do. But every so often I have restored a few links when I see blatant vandalism. And note that Schneider’s personal Wikipedia page was vandalized by another IP #. This seems to be a pattern.

My point is that I am a film fan and participate in discussion groups and boards and have found many good sites and articles (including Schneider) because of Wikipedia links. I think the links are usually MORE valuable than the articles, frankly. I dislike returning to an article where I found a link and see it removed because of some editors’ personal bias: film or director or critic or whatever personal silly reason. Take a look at the links recently removed from La strada. http://www.brokenprojector.com/wordpress/?p=40 This is a rather generic personal blog link http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/04/12/175922.php This is the Schneider link and it has far more detail history and quality here. When I was claimed to be a spammer I followed a link provided and found this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL What should be linked Shortcut:WP:ELYES 1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. On all three listed points the Schneider article I linked and many others meet the mark. Then there is this. Links normally to be avoided 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

Clearly the link I linked back is unique, especially compared to the generic link that was restored. This and these other two points seem to be used as reasons to delete.

4. Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming.

The link I restored made no mention of Schneider or his website. I restored it just so that others could make use of its insights like I did. If that’s spam then every Pauline Kael or New York Times or Roger Ebert link (and there are hundreds of times more for them) is spam too.

11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies). 11

Now, some claim that Blogcritics is just a blog, and I’ve seen deletions of Schneider and other good articles for that. But, Blogcritics is not just a blog. It uses blog technology, but it’s a magazine with over 4 million readers a month. That’s more than all but a few print magazines and papers. And it’s quite professional looking to read. Having followed links provided by the person who said I spammed I found that Schneider meets notability requirements because he has his own Wikipedia page and twice was noted as notable. He is published online and off and has had articles in major media. He also is part of some film critics group.

Yes there are folk who just add Schneider stuff to battle the vandals but I think that’s because there are many more people, like the IP # people who deleted and vandalized the Schneider page. I’m not one of them. I just want to see editors take some care and time. I’ve seen English wiki links written in foreign languages retained while Schneider and other good links are removed for the sorts of reasons I describe.

I realize this is a hornets nest, but this is why good editors get turned off to Wiki, like that admin I crosspost to. Could you please look at the revert I made and fairly decide if it should stay? I detest mindless reverts w/o even looking at links’ quality. I just think some unbiased eyes need to look at this. And, it’s not just Schneider’s link, but many links for films. I agree that 30 links is too much, but there has to be room in an encyclopedia for quality regardless of its source. Just because the New York Times has an article does not make it better than an online writer’s.

I do not wish to be trouble, but I also don’t wish to be labeled a vandal or worse, and I do not want to edit war with people. Thanks for your time.

Veritasmaximal (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hope I don't miss you

Hi SouthernNights, hopefully you'll see this within the next day or two - but I notice that it's possible that you won't. As I was reading through the WP:RIP talk page, I see that you've been active in it through multiple threads, and then I noticed that your UP says that you were instrumental in getting it going. To try to make a long story short (if it's not too late), there is a discussion currently running on, what appears to be guidelines at this point, in regards to proper procedure. The discussion is here:

• Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians/Proposal to establish practices to be followed for deceased Wikipedians

I very much hope that you see this in time to weigh in, especially now that I see how much work you've put into establishing this project. If I would have realized that in the beginning, I would have come to you for help in setting up the whole thing - I apologize for my short-sightedness in that regard. Hope you get this in time to help. — Ched :  ?  23:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the discussion and for doing all this. I fully support it. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

I saw that you were listed in the Coaches for reconfirmation section of the admin coaching status page. Could you please update your status, and if you are still interested, drop me a note on my talk page? Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 22:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC) This message was delivered semi-automatically by AutoWikiBrowser.

GA Reassessessment of Clare Winger Harris

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing and the lead which you can see at Talk:Clare Winger Harris/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Musharraf

Dear S.N., I have main numerous edits to reduce the amount of POV/schillery in the Pervez Musharraf article. Please help keep an eye out. Thanks V. Joe (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Princess Mononoke. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Castle of Cagliostro, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

See my comments on your talk page.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As I Lay Dying

As someone who was involved in previous discussions, please be aware of the current move discussion at Talk:As I Lay Dying (novel), and weigh in if you want. Thanks!--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

• 19:06, 5 October 2007 SouthernNights protected Saudi Arabia ‎ (vandalism [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

That was nearly two years ago. I'd like to review this to see if it's still necessary. This is part of a major review I'm conducting of longstanding indefinite semiprotections. Please see the discussion I have started on talk:Saudi Arabia. --TS 16:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cambridge_University_Press#Controversies_section

Just to let you know I commented upon and support your insertion of the controversies issue at the above page. LOL! I didn't even get to finish typing my reply before that editor Ronz undid my first edit. I doubt your reasoning will work with him. Ibroan (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't hurt to try, rather than make bad-faith assumptions about others, right? --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyone, please stay civil.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm being civil, but I'll happily reword my comment. --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't directed at you. You were civil.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

But I could have done more to de-escalate. I've struck out the unnecessary and vexing portion. --Ronz (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I was nothing but civil. It was the other editor who was making snide remarks and then hiding both my comments and the other editor's comments so that other readers would not see what he was doing. And I made no assumptions. On Ronz's talk page he freely writes of disdaining civility and politeness. I was just acknowledging he at least practices what he preaches, even if it makes for very poor editing and a poor encyclopedia. I was merely agreeing with YOUR position. If people were more honest and less snide, then perhaps good information, like that you were restoring, would be available to the public, and Wikipedia would be held in higher regard. Sorry for actually sticking up for you. I can see it was not appreciated. Ibroan (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.xxxxxxxxxxx.com/B843-DES672.htm#More%20Wikipedia%20Asses

The deleted link is from the author in question's site, cosmoetica.com. Not too sure if this sheds any new light on the situation, but it is interesting nonetheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.233.246 (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Separating Youth incarceration from Incarceration in the United States

I've just done this. Given your interest, I figured you might want to be informed directly (so if you're offline for a while you don't miss the edits in your watchlist). See the new article at Youth incarceration in the United States. I cleaned up and verified most of the references (Anything with a cite tag and an accessdate of 2009-11-06 should be fully verified, the rest were given more cursory attention; my attention span wasn't up to a full reformat of all 35 references, so I fixed the most egregiously poor ones; bare URLs, massively repeated and subtly wrong references to a couple of sources, etc.), and made very minor edits to make the facts given agree with the references (there were only one or two points of disagreement, and they were minor). Please let me know what you think. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I nominated your article about Dan Schneider for deletion. I see no reason for why he is notable enough to have an encyclopedia article written about him. I see no awards, published books, statistics on book sales or anything else that would indicate to me that this person is significant in any major way. Boab (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Christianism

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Christianism. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianism. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy SouthernNights's Day!

User:SouthernNights has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as SouthernNights's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear SouthernNights! Peace, Rlevse 00:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Many, many thanks!--SouthernNights (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Admin Coaching: Reconfirmation

I was looking through the coaches at Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Status and saw that there are a lot under "reconfirmation".

Could you let me know if you are still interesting in being involved with Admin Coaching, or if you would prefer to have your name removed from the "reconfirmation" list. If you want to be involved, could you please move your entry from "Reconfirmation" to "Active" and indicate how many students you would be willing to have (obviously, if you are actively coaching at the moment, then please indicate this!)

If I do not hear from you within a week, I will assume that you would like to have your name removed from the list of coaches.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"List of districts in India"

Hi,

The reason that I deleted a large amount of content was because the editor before me had copy-pasted one of tables multiple times, and I was just deleting the duplicate tables. Thanks, 173.72.137.168 (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Segregation academies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Segregation academies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Segregation academies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdad (talk • contribs) 18:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy WHAT? It sure ain't happy for me!

Happy Thanksgiving Tony the Marine (talk), 25 November 2010

Question. Why did you delete Cutcaster's entry but you let entries like this go through. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixmac

The article did not state why the subject was notable. It was also blatant advertising. I also deleted the Pixmac article for the same reason.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I don't think, that Pixmac article was advertising... If you think so, why don't you delete the same content at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutterstock, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IStockPhoto, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fotolia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamstime etc. Tell me please, what part of Pixmac article was about advertising and I will rewrite it. Thanks--Xvlcm12 17:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Opinion vs. Fact: Re: Kramer

How does one deal with opinion vs. fact when both are in print? One example is the "riot" where investigative reporter Cohen at http://atlantajewish.com/content/2004/edkramer.html notes that there is no record of any such riot. The aforementioned article quotes witnesses of an assault. Is is incorrect to provide balance according to TOS? Please note that a 3rd party had previously evaluated the content and removed inappropriate content from OrangeMike, which he has now replaced. OrangeMike has been a past critic of both Dragon Con and Kramer prior to 2000, and his commentary reflects this bias. I have been to Dragon Con, have followed this case, but consider myself neither a close friend nor associate. Aeneas (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've responded at Talk:Edward_E._Kramer#Removing_sourced_information.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Uncle Tom's Cabin

Hello. As you are the primary editor of the article, please see its talk page, as there are several issues regarding this article. TGilmour (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed these issues. Please see my comment on the article's talk page.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

See it again, please. TGilmour (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Dan Schneider (writer)/Archive 1

FYI... I've created the archive for Talk:Dan Schneider, which it seems you forgot to create in 2010.[7] Viriditas (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear SouthernNights,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar ([[User talk:Jaobar|talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.34.167 (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

2006 GFDL issues

Dear SouthernNights,

Questions are being arising here on the french Wikipedia regarding copyrighted text which is indicated alloted under GFDL. A check on Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission does not give a satisfying return. The object of our inquiry is Hans Gál ; you ackowledged it seems the author's authorization regarding his site at the time, could you please give us confirmation ? Thanks in advance, --Askedonty (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I've responded to this on your talk page.--SouthernNights (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Reversions on Montgomery Academy Article

Hi SouthernNights. New discussion on Montgomery Academy's talk page. Need your input. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdad (talk • contribs) 17:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

More discussion on the Montgomery Academy talk page. Need some more information. ThanksVerdad (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

More discussion available. Appreciate your feedback. Verdad (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jake Adam York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Morgan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Pink Friday: The Pinkprint

Hello my friend. I see you've protected it. It was just created and I think the newcomer is working on it. I'm not sure it needs protection. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like there was a good mix of vandalism and edits going on by anonymous editors, making it difficult to see who was doing legit edits and who was doing bad. I only semi-protected, but if you want I'll lift it.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 00:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 22:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Happy New Year

• Man, oh man, am I glad to hear from you. You have always been one of my best friends here and I'm glad that you are still around. Not too many good-guys still left here. I want to wish you a Happy New Year. Hey, when you have the time, check out this guy called Tony over here:[8]. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Reply Re. Pugmire

In case you did not see it, this is to let you know that I have replied to your comments at Dennis Bratland's talk page.Pernoctus (talk) 10:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of Choice AfD

You said "The result was KEEP in light of recent improvements to the article". That is absolutely wrong, you can't delete an article based on its current state. "Recent improvements" should have no weight on your keep/delete decision. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

In general you're correct--a subject's notability exists apart from the current state of the article. However, a poorly sourced article can mislead people into believing the subject is not notable. After the article was improved, the notability was more obvious to the AfD participants and caused the discussion to shift firmly to keep. That's what I was trying to indicate with that comment.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

First result was delete.

• Hi SouthernNights, you have closed the discussion nomination for deletion of Nandini Sahu, but at the talk page, first nomination for deletion's result was "delete" instead of "keep". If I am right please correct that. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops. My bad. I'll correct that in a moment.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem and thanks.Justice007 (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Re-submitting previously deleted post about company

Hello SoutherNights!

About a year ago I spent some time trying to write an article about a local start-up company in my area that has helped my business immensely. At the time the company was deemed not to be relevant and the article was deleted - I was a little sad as I spent some time learning how to use Wikipedia for this express purpose. All in all it was a good experience but I am ready to try again. When I visited the deleted page I was told to contact the deleting editor before proceeding (I missed this step yesterday while I was working on it). Since last year the company has grown significantly having articles written about it by over a dozen recognizable media sources and they won a major industry award in British Columbia. I have simplified the article and made references where appropriate. Is there anything else I need to do before re-submitting? And is there anything else I can do to improve the chances of success? This has become a bit of a personal quest for me now and I would love to just put it to bed.

Thanks for taking the time.

Best regards,

Tekgrunt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tekgrunt (talk • contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File tagged for deletion

FYI, a media file which SouthernNights appears to have uploaded, has been tagged for potential deletion here. I was made aware of this by this notice here. Please be aware of this.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

questions

I'm not sure how much you've read about this epic-wiki-debate, but I wanted to ask you a few questions re: your comment on the American novelists page.

1. Do you realize that, up till now, Category:American novelists has *never* contained all novelists? Many were sub-catted into genre-specific categories (at last count there were around 6800 novelists, 3000 of which were never in the head cat) - so going by wiki-categorization-votes (e.g. the accumulated votes of thousands of edits), this tree has always diffused. That to me is a good indication that consensus is not that the parent should contain all of the children.
2. Even today, you can get a list of *all* novelists by simply clicking the link at the top of the page, which brings you to an external tool which enumerates the whole tree - no matter what subcats they are in. So if the user wants a full list, we can give it to them today, no matter if we diffuse or not.
3. By saying all novelists should be in the parent cat, do you realize you are basically saying that (a) none of the extant sub-cats can diffuse any more, and (b) that no diffusing sub-cats could ever be created in the future (for example, novelists by state)? This means the by-century cats (e.g. Category:20th-century American novelists, and the by-genre cats (eg Category:American romantic fiction novelists) cannot diffuse.

I can see an argument for no longer diffusing the genre cats (since we don't want to pigeonhole novelists), but I don't see why you wouldn't diffuse on century. We diffuse on century in thousands of other locations in the tree -its a quite standard way to split up a large tree. Why should American novelists be a special exception?

Thanks, I'm asking you here as I've already weighed in enough on the other page... cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of all these points. But this isn't an either/or situation. If editors want to put an author in American novelists, let them. If they want to also put that author in a subcategory, let them also do that. There's nothing lost by doing this. As for diffusing by century cats, that can also be done, but it shouldn't be done at the expense of the American novelists category. Remember that categories are a tool to aid in finding subjects and articles. I feel that keeping authors out of this category will simply make it harder for people to find what they're looking for.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I see your point - but what diffusion means is removal from the parents - so what I think you're saying is, the by-century cats should *not* diffuse - i.e. they should be non-diffusing. I'm just pointing out that this is contrary to the behavior of the rest of the ~20,000 categories that have the word "20th-century" in the title, and I've yet to see arguments for why this should be the case for this one tree. Ironically, keeping everything in the parent also makes it *harder* to put novelists in more specific cats - when the cat is empty, like Category:American politicians, it's easy to find someone who isn't properly categorized. If everyone is in the parent, you'll never find these. Just a few thoughts for your consideration...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Author Robert Clark Young sockpuppeting

I wasn't around in March 2007 when you were dealing with a bunch of sockpuppets and off-wiki harassment of Alabamaboy. It looks like all the discussions about that case have been revdel'ed, for privacy reasons. The subject has come up again at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qworty. Can I ask you to offer your thoughts on that case, to share some of your impressions about the sockpuppeting editor who recently revealed himself as Robert Clark Young on the Qworty user page? I don't want to see a failure in institutional memory just because the Alabamaboy case is no longer visible. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Brad Vice

Would you consider unprotecting this page so that some of the damage can be undone? It's been 6 months, which seems long enough to me.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Done.--SouthernNights (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kindly!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sharon process

I was considering writing an entry for the SHARON process to explain why a system may be designed so as to yield nitrites from ammonia, but see that a page with this title was previously deleted on the grounds of copyright infringement. Could you explain what lead you to delete rather than edit the page, given that information about the process is freely available elsewhere?

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleckinghorn (talk • contribs) 10:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm writing an academic article on people-participation in the 'production' of Shakespeare studies. I noticed that you had recently provided some edits for the Wiki Shakespeare page, and wondered if I might ask you some questions about that? This project is at a very early stage so I've not yet refined or worked out a fixed methodology. So the questions are also not yet fully formed. (And I am aware that you also contribute to many other pages.) 1. What motivates you specifically to contribute specifically to the Shakespeare page? 2. Do you consider that your skills in this regard are general, technical, or specialist? 3. Have you contributed to other Shakespeare-related pages? 3. What's you opinion on how the Shakespeare page has evolved over time? 4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Shakespeare page in terms of its current form and content? 5. Who would you say are the target readers for this page? 6. What have been the advantages and/or the frustrations of working on the Shakespeare page? 7. What are your reflections on the process of wiki-engagement in terms of dialogue, connection, community and collaboration? 8. In your view, are there any other questions that ought to be considered? Many thanks for taking the time to read this! TheoryofSexuality (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed myself from that list. I have a readily evident pattern of taking long breaks from editing. --SouthernNights (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Joe E. Ross

I have commented at the discussion you started at Talk:Joe E. Ross. While I appreciate you starting a discussion, I'm unclear as to why you're continuing to revert while discussion is underway. You're an admin; I have little doubt that you'll win in the end. In the meantime, you should at least pretend to follow WP:BRD (you made a bold edit; I reverted to the long-standing version; now we [and hopefully others] discuss it). Thanks. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Aristidh Kola

Thanks for the tip[[9]] . By the way is it possible to have the text of the old article [[10]] and the name of its creator because it appears that this is related with a sockpuppet case of user:Sulmues. Alexikoua (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, permission to view the deleted pages and edits is limited to admins, checkusers and a few others groups. Apologies, but under Wikipedia guidelines I can't reveal this info. If you suspect a sockpuppet case you can report it. All needed info is at Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if its possible to know who was the creator of the article. It appears it was one of the two: Sulmues or Lceliku, both of them involved in diferrent sp cases.Alexikoua (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those editors created the article, but the editor who did create it was eventually blocked for using sockpuppets. Since the editor was blocked I'd say I can reveal the editor's username: User:Guildenrich. However, another editor also edited that now-deleted article, and this editor appears to have a clean record at Wikipedia.

In addition, do understand the current article is vastly expanded and different from the version which was deleted several years ago. While I don't know the backstory on all this, when I read the current article and examined its possible notability, it wasn't a candidate for speedy delete. However, that doesn't mean you can't bring it up for discussion on Articles for Deletion. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maurice Broaddus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cemetery Dance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Your email

For reasons I won't spend time explaining, I have only just found your email, and I'm afraid I don't have time to deal with it now. I will try to get onto it later today, but I may not be able to until tomorrow. If that is not good enough, then perhaps you can either deal with it yourself or ask someone else to help. Sorry that I can't be more helpful right now. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, SouthernNights. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Deceased_Wikipedians#Admin_right_of_deceased_editors.
Message added 18:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito☸Dutta 18:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Why did you delete the Lumeta Corporation page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.88.154 (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sofia Samatar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Somali. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Marcus Louis article

Why did you state that this article is not eligible to be deleted by CSD:G4 since it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Louis less than two weeks ago? Papaursa (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The article in its current state appears to meet notability standards. As such it no longer meets the criteria for speedy delete.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

So it is significantly different from the previously deleted article? Papaursa (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Lumeta Corporation

Hello, I am trying to remedy the reasons why the Lumeta Corporation page was deleted from Wikipedia 2 February 2014. (Likely, a previous co-worker changed the content to cause the deletion in the first place, so I am trying to put up content that will fit within Wikipedia's guidelines.) Thank you in advance for pointing me in the right direction to fix this. info@lumeta.com

The article was blatant advertising which didn't explain why the company meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. I checked both the last version of the article and previous versions and this lack of notability and focus on advertising the company held up. --SouthernNights (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Recently Deleted Page

Hi, My unfinished page, Forbidden Haunted House, was deleted because it was "advertising something". I disagree with this, and would like to finish editing my page and remove something that may seem like advertising. Besides, the attraction I'm writing about closed permanently in October, and I don't think that you can advertise something that no longer exists. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GraceyManorVA (talk • contribs) 15:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Advertising wasn't the only issue b/c the article also lacked credible sources showing the subject's notability. See Wikipedia:Notability for more on this. Unless your article doesn't read as advertising and also meets notability guidelines it will likely be deleted again. But if you think the subject can be fixed and is notable with credible sources, by all means re-create the article.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

So there is no way for you to restore the page and I have to start all over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GraceyManorVA (talk • contribs) 15:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Lost edit history for Zuism (religion)

Hi. Because of the way that content was copy-pasted from Zuism (religion) to Zuism, your deletion of the former wipes out the revision history behind the content now included in the latter. For that reason, shouldn't you either let Zuism (religion) live, or else merge its revision history into that of the remaining article? —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I undid the deletion. From the speedy delete tag and associated info it appeared this was a routine housekeeping deletion. Since it's not I undeleted the article. I don't know why someone didn't simply move the article in the first place, which would have transferred both the article and the history. But now that the new article has been created the simplest thing to do is leave the redirect. --SouthernNights (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I intended to move it myself when noticing the unnecessary disambiguator in the title, but then discovered that Zuism was already occupied. As it was only a redirect at the time, I figure I could do a G6 myself followed by a move, or use submitted a move request, but I noticed that Talk:Zuism was occupied, and I thought there might be some merit to preserving the substantive discussion that had been there. That's why I went with a merge proposal. But then someone else did the copy-paste. Anyway, just now, I confirmed a hunch that an appropriate template exists in the form of {{r from merge}} advising the reader that, indeed, the page should be left in place to preserve its history after its content was moved elsewhere. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing all this out. I try to be careful with speedy deletes but sometimes I miss stuff. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I know! No criticism intended! Ciao. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Her Honor, Nancy James

I appreciate your note about my article on Her Honor, Nancy James. I was not familiar with the program, either. I discovered it while I did research on Barbara Weeks. After I completed the article about her, I used material that I had found during that process to create the article about the program. Thanks for your interest. Eddie Blick (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!!

Appreciate your comment for the Battles of idar. i have also made more articles about the wars fought by Rana Sanga and some other Indian personalities. Please do check them if your interested in Indian history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divyraj (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Andries Schoemaker

Hi, SouthernNights, I noticed your deletion, does this mean the text in Category:Atlas Schoemaker is a copyright infringement? Strange it has not been removed there. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll respond on your talk page.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Dahlia notability template

Hello, SouthernNights. Does it look like Thomas Dahlia meets notability now? 64.134.65.105 (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is improved but I still don't think the subject meets our notability guidelines. For more on these sports notability guidelines, go here. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comment, it is much appreciated. I am working on improving the coverage of football in Suriname at the moment. Thank you for your review. Best regards, (Subzzee (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC))

Re: Happy New Year

Hey, hey my friend it is so nice to hear from you. A Happy belated New Year to you also. May this year be filled with blessings for you and your loved ones. Hey, did I tell you that I was featured in a documentary that aired throughout the United States via PBS on September 22? The documentary is titled "On Two Fronts: Latinos in Vietnam". Just in case you want to check it out, you can see it here: [[11]]. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I heard of the documentary but haven't seen it yet. I'll check it out.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

why did you deleted najeh rosario

he deleted it Downsclank (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I deleted Najeh Rosario because the subject wasn't notable, per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I suggest you read up on those guidelines. In addition, if you post insults on the site again you're likely to be blocked, so I suggest you keep your conversations civil.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GertrudeBarrowsBennett.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GertrudeBarrowsBennett.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

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

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Quantum anthropology

Thank you very much. The article is discussed for deletion, can I kindly ask you about check it, maybe vote? Wikiditor —Preceding undated comment added 09:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, SouthernNights. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi SouthernNights.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, SouthernNights. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

AFC article

This article [12] was resubmitted and accepted by uninvolved editor User:SwisterTwister on AFC. It had many more references but you deleted it for recreation. You might be incorrect. Can you please undelete it? If you want to scrutinize it, you should better use AFD. But that would be unfair too as it was accepted by uninvolved, not published by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mietusr (talk • contribs) 09:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The article appears to be almost the same as the version which was deleted per an AfD. If you want to contest that deletion you should bring up a discussion at deletion review. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

ok. I will do that now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mietusr (talk • contribs) 07:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Godfathers of MMA: The Birth of An American Sport

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Godfathers of MMA: The Birth of An American Sport. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mietusr (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Vlad Dragomir

I'm hoping I could get you to reverse your decision regarding the speedy deletion of this article. The fact that he is signed to Arsenal is not something that's changed since the AfD. In fact three of the five editors commenting there, explicitly mention the transfer to Arsenal and that it is not sufficient for notability unless he actually plays for the senior team, which he has not done. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can. I checked carefully before making the decision that this article was no longer a candidate for speedy delete. The original AfD discussion was closed as delete on July 3, 2015. Since then Vlad Dragomir has received a good bit of notable coverage such as in The Mirror and also signed a contract with Arsenal in 2016. It appears Vlad lacked this coverage and the contract when the original AfD was discussed. As such it appears that circumstances have changed and he may be notable. This doesn't mean the article can't be deleted, only that it can't be speedy deleted. I suggest bringing up for an AfD.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Salina Vortex

Hello, SouthernNights. I am wondering if you will allow me access to the content I previously submitted to create this page. I have read through the COI warning issued on my page. I assure that my intentions were in good faith, I was simply confused by the Wikipedia page creation functionality. By clicking "save," I was under the impression I was saving a draft to later come back to and insert sources -- not that I was publishing the page. I thank you for considering me to contribute this page to the database. Have a nice day.

VortexMKTG (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. I pasted the copy on your talk page.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Guy Fort

Hello! Your submission of Guy Fort at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Manxruler (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SouthernNights. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Prawn soup.
Message added 04:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Article has been edited. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hugo Award for Best Related Work, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Morrow (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Pushsinghimage.jpg

The file File:Pushsinghimage.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused personal photo

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Solnit's Law

Your deletion of my article was fair, but you have to trust me about this subject. It may not show up on google but it shows up in social circles. I understand it's anecdotal evidence but this is a real issue. Mansplaining once was just a made-up word, too, y'know. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelJosephNiemeyer (talk • contribs) 18:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your review of Laura Pitt-Pulford and I'm glad you believe it to be a good start. I'm working my way through a list of some notable West End theatre performers who as of yet don't have their own Wikipedia pages, so it's good to know I'm on the right track. Mark E (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Danforth Chapels

Thank you for your feedback. I believe we mislabled our lead—I am working with college students who worked this page on my sandbox in the last 5 weeks, and I published it this morning. I believe we have corrected the issue by eliminating the heading and bringing a reference to the topic to the top of the lead. --CSTKing (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Duncan Pescod

Hello!

Sorry to bother you, but I'd like to have Duncan Pescod restored. Did you see my messages on the talk page? Anyway, there were no grounds for speedy deletion as all quotes are marked as such, attributed and linked to under a section called Sources.

I have already lost all my work on this page once. I really don't want to lose it all again!

—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 16:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Just noted that you also cited A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events).

Duncan Pescod is running a highly controversial semi-independent government agency in a city-state of 8 million people with HK$21.6B budget. His appointment to the Authority was covered in the media, as was his promotion to CEO of the Authority. While he was Director of Housing, he was found to have illegal built structures on his property. He was the most senior non-Chinese civil servant when he was working directly for the government.

—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 16:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but not convinced he meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. The West Kowloon Cultural District Authority appears to be a property development, albeit one with government authority and backing. Merely being in the position of leading such a project by itself doesn't mean he meets Wikipedia notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but not convinced he's less notable than someone like Robert Hammond, solely notable for the fact that he runs a charity that maintains a city park. I hope you don't find me too aggressive in my advocacy for this page—I've found engaging with the wikipedia community to be closer to "alienating" than "collaborative" and have become frustrated—but seriously, how is the public to hold prominent public officials accountable if these people don't even have a wikipedia page?

This person was handpicked by the undemocratically-elected Chief of our little godforsaken patch of scrubland on the Pacific. The appointment was widely reported as a political move to further the government's (thus the People's Republic of China's) interests in this high-profile project, which has of late become an embarrassment (400 million over budget; string of people have quit immediately after being hired; public protests about plans for a Beijing-themed museum on the site).

My article doesn't go too much into this treacherous political territory because NPOV is a brilliant value that I totally believe in. Doesn't mean this political context is not happening or being talked about in the media. I can send links if you'd like.

I would also like to note that Duncan Pescod is good enough for Chinese wikipedia. See zh:栢志高.

Again, sorry for my tone. Just trying to express where I'm at right now.

—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 13:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced. But feel free to bring this issue up at deletion review. If the editors there agree with you I'll undelete it. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for linking Deletion review! I've gone ahead and tried that. My argument there isn't substantially different than it is here. Hopefully that makes things easier for all involved!

—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 05:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm so sorry to bother you again, but I wanted to clarify something. Do you still believe the page fell foul of "unambiguous copyright infringement"? My deletion review was summarily closed for that reason, but I was under the impression that the primary issue you have will the page is notability.

—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 02:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The article had issues with both, as was described in the deletion summary. Neither issue was primary as they were both individually sufficient reasons to delete the article.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. —A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 02:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

An update! Cryptic closed my Deletion review submission because copyvio is not subject for discussion at Deletion review. However, Cryptic did make a suggestion I wanted to run by you.

It's fallen into kind of a catch-22 situation: DRV won't consider it while the copyvio situation is unresolved; and the folks at WP:CP aren't going to be willing to restore and vet a non-infringing version of the article when its last deletion has an "A7" stuck to it. I suppose the way forward would be for an administrator to restore the article, edit out the quotes from your sources, revdel all previous versions, re-delete the article, and then run a deletion review as to whether the A7 (or a G11) is valid. The ideal person to do that would be User:SouthernNights. If he's unwilling to do this himself but isn't actively and vehemently opposed to it, I can do it on probably Monday or Tuesday of next week (I've been working . . . ).

You can see the whole (long) thread here.

Would you be willing to do this? I would be so grateful. Understand if not, though.

—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 04:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

See the message on your talk page.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Practopoiesis

Hello,

This is about your deletion of Practopoiesis. I am confused because I submitted the page for review and was instructed by the reviewer/editor, Gtstricky, to edit this page and put the text there. Now a double problem came: We lost the text of the page. We had a draft at Draft:Practopoiesis but then someone else deleted it after I moved the text to Practopoiesis (as instructed by Gtstricky). Now, after you deleted the page, I wouldn't know how to recover the text. Can you advice me at least on that?

Also, are you sure that the page deserves deletion? It received an "approval" by another editor -- at least kind of an approval after instructing to move the text there. Also, the critique that was presented in two years ago is not valid any longer, as many other people use the theory and other academics work with it and publish peer-reviewed papers.

Thank you. Danko (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Dankonikolic

The page was originally subject to an Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussion in 2014, where the decision was to delete it. That's why it was deleted and other work on the site doesn't change that original AfD. In addition, it is concerning that the person behind this theory is the person trying to create the Practopoiesis article. That conflict of interest (see here for more on that) makes me disinclined to overturn the original AfD on my own. However, if you desire you can bring this up for a Deletion Review here. Sincerely, --SouthernNights (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicelebs.com as a source

Hi SouthernNights . I'm in the process of removing ethnicelebs.com as a source from Wikipedia, because it's not reliable (See User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#EthniCelebs.com). I noticed that you've added it, and wanted to make sure you understood why it's being removed. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

All good. If it's not reliable remove it. Thanks.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Black literature listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Black literature. Since you had some involvement with the Black literature redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Obituary

Hello. I nominated the redirect page WP:obituary for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 18#Wikipedia:Obituary, where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Arthur Bayley

Greetings. I'd like to know why you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Arthur Bayley in the way that you did? It had only been relisted around 20 hours before you closed it, and there is clearly no consensus for the decision you made - after all, nobody has demonstrated any inclusion criteria that apply and there's no case for WP:IAR for what amounts to a purely WP:MILL biography. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The consensus was to keep the article. The AfD was originally posted on June 24 and while the first relisting could be understood the second relisting seemed like overkill. I appreciate that you were passionate about deleting the article but just because you disagreed with the points other editors made doesn't mean their points weren't valid, or that consensus wasn't reached. Sincerely,--SouthernNights (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Wyhle the closure was good(there wasn't any other way to close it without going into the super-vote territory) the relisting was not an overkill.Number of !votes don't matter, their contents matter.Two of the !votes after the 1st relist commented:--I wouldn't say this is the strongest source for GNG and The GNG call is a close one and another !vote did not seem to counter the nom-rationale.Winged Blades ^Godric 04:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

That's right, I didn't counter the rationale, only the implication that the article should be deleted. The notability guidelines (there is no policy on notability) say they are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Thincat (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Watch Shop

Hello, I'd like to as you to reconsider the speedy deletion of the Watch Shop page. There was no discussion about deleting the page, and no response in the talk page when I contested the speedy deletion. While the grounds for deletion of the page in 2013 may have been fair, the status of the subject has since grown and changed. Below, I've outlined a response to the reasons given for deletion (WP:A7 and WP:G4).

Watch Shop is a subsidiary of the UK’s leading jewellery retailer, Aurum Holdings. There are live Wikipedia pages about several of Aurum Holdings’ other businesses, including Goldsmiths, Mappin & Webb and Watches of Switzerland. Note: Some of these pages are not written neutrally or as well sourced as the page in question.

The company meets the criteria outlined in WP:WEBCRIT:

“The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.” Several newspaper articles document the business’ history, growth, and relevance, including:

Details about the company are cited with independent, third-party reliable sources.

"The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." See Sunday Times Fast Track 100.

I can't see what the old page looked like, but while it may not have been valid in 2013, the company is now a leading online retailer in the UK watch market and a ‘market leader’ and is therefore relevant in a similar way to Farfetch, Trainline and Moonpig. Its subsequent growth, activity, and consumer interest in it mean it meets notability guidelines, which have been appropriately cited in line with WP:V.

Peace corps criticism deletion

Hi there. I noticed you reverted a recent edit that I made on criticisms of the Peace Corps initiative. Granted, the criticisms were based on interviews made at the onset of the peace corps 60 years ago; However, the observations and concerns raised by the students interviewed at the time are still applicable today. Recent events this past year have shown this. Completely deleting the addition as you did suggests irrelevance. I would argue that their insights merit inclusion in some capacity in this article. I propose two options - either a subsection under criticism on "historical criticism" or a paragraph in the history section "(1960-1969)". The peace corps volunteer in mostly third world countries. The perceptions of the inhabitants of these third would countries, both historical and current, should be relevant. Many thanks! Lilac breasted roller (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Nayyirah Waheed

Hey, I reached out via email regarding Nayyirah Waheed's wikipedia page. When you have a moment please review my email and let me know if you need additional resources to get the request handled. Greatly appreciated. Meauxgul (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm deeply sympathetic on your request. But I have no way to know that you are actually the article's subject. In addition, if a subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines we can't simply delete the article b/c the subject doesn't want the article to exist. Is any of the information wrong? If so I could remove that. But otherwise I'm not sure what I can do here.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there anyway we can speak about this via email so that you I can provide all necessary information and discuss revisions and/or deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meauxgul (talk • contribs) 22:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Cliff Chapman

I have supporting evidence for why "Cliff Chapman" should be revived as a page. It has created reputational damage to delete the page as "unsuccessful actor".

Cliff Chapman is an Equity member A Spotlight member Represented by Meredith Westwood Mgt and London VO Has around a dozen credits for worlwide selling Games Workshop Black Library audio dramas One Big Finish credit for the Pathfinder Legends series Uk commercial Numerous stage appearances Steve Jordan, writer of plays written for and starring Cliff, has a page, despite Cliff having many more professional credits.

Please remove references to "unsuccessful actor" as it is unjust and causes extreme reputational damage. A successful actor is not merely a Hollywood star.

The Magic Wanderer (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't write that summary reason for deleting the article, another admin did. That said, there's no reason for that statement to be there. I've deleted the deletion summary including the words "unsuccessful actor." However, there's still no proof the subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Until such proof is presented there's no reason to undelete the article. I hope this helps.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

File:CaptainLarryChambers.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CaptainLarryChambers.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

See what I'm talking about

I wanted you to see the most recent attempt to move the article title for African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–1968) in Requested move 23 November 2017. As I said in our discussion, we're averaging one move a year. Mitchumch (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this needs to be resolved. If you put forward a solution I'd support you.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, SouthernNights. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious

African-American literature

Thank you for quality articles such as African-American literature, Uncle Tom's Cabin and Clare Winger Harris, for your immense contributions to William Shakespeare, for remembering with thanks those of us who died, - repeating (27 January 2010): you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 1887 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

How to put this?

Hmm....Can you please explain which source(s) of the many removed at this edit are reliable?! And, does every G-Hit equates to encyclopedic information? Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe reliability-wise this reference was Okay therefore I've reinstated it back. --Saqib (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks:) That was an error on my part.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Rodney Smith (Buddhist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rodney Smith (Buddhist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Smith (Buddhist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, SouthernNights. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding semi-protect at article Hedwig Kohn

You placed an indefinite semi-protect on the article Hedwig Kohn. While obviously the semi-protection was needed, you left it as indefinite, which I assume was an oversight on your part. A three day semi-protect seems like it would have been sufficient, particularly as this article has never been subject to semi-protection in the past. Request modification of the semi-protect to expire on April 8, 2019. I will also make this request at WP:RPP, as I have noted that you are currently not editing on a regular basis. Safiel (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Query about source

Good morning. I'd like to add Jeffe Kennedy to the notable alumni list for Overland High School, and would like to make an appropriate citation. As I understand the policy, simply citing her wikipedia page would be circular and not sufficient. It looks like your reference footnote 4 on Jeffe_Kennedy has the data I need. Can you confirm that the cited article mentions her High School? JeffBerry (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mainpage date to come

Template:Mainpage date to come has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Requesting undeletion of earlier versions of an article

Hi: In April 2017 you deleted Keith Hufnagel as an A7. He recently died and a new article has been created that appears to demonstrate notability quite clearly. I can't see from "What links here" who created the earlier article, in March 2016 judging by the date of its being marked patrolled, but unless their article was unreferenced or otherwise horrible, I think it would be nice to give them credit by undeleting the earlier versions. Unfortunately the instructions at REFUND specifically exclude pages deleted A7. Could you take a look and consider doing so? Thanks, Yngvadottir (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Jeff VanderMeer

Hello there, my name's Britton and I'm a big Jeff VanderMeer fan and I saw that his page was protected by you. I wanted to get to your attention that A Peculiar Peril came out last year and that Hummingbird Salamander is coming out on April 6 of this year. I would do it myself, but I don't want to get blocked again on the site for 'disruptive edits.' I just thought that I would let you know.

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, SouthernNights. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Barkeep49 (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Understanding my actions regarding NeoBatfreak

I get the picture to avoid misusing the ANI in the future. Doniago kind of suggested an elevated warning or ANI as a next step about NeoBatfreak when I was talking to him about it on his talk page. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Please stop hounding me

I'm sorry I had reported your acquaintance to ANI months ago for their multi-day bludgeoning, edit warring including 3RR, and personal attacks. While it was unbefitting of an admin to ignore a legitimate ANI report and instead turn the ANI section to cast aspersions against me and defend your acquaintance, I am startled to see that you're still upset about this and still misrepresenting the situation. I respectfully ask to stop the hounding. Thank you. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON‎ and the AfD that just closed, policy question

First, thank you for highlighting the WP:BLUDGEON issue on my part, that was absolutely a fair concern to raise. I actually wanted to ask what the appropriate approach is here, I have some concern that I've come off to you and another admin here as going on a bit with WP:RGW, but there appears to be a fundemental problem with some content on Wikipedia. Note that I'm not trying to do this solo or just change a ton based on my perspective, but rather I'm trying to involve the wider linguistics Wikiproject as this perspective is shared more widely in the linguistic community. There is a genuinely large amount of content on Wikipedia which takes Nostratic as a given, and this is directly against overwhelming academic consensus, which I've been trying to make clearer in some of the relavent articles with citations. Any attempt to do a substantial overhaul of this, in light of the tone that many of the relavent articles have taken, ends up looking like WP:ADVOCACY. So, I would like to make sure I'm taking a step back and not engaging in WP:BLUDGEON like behaviour, but I'm curious if Wikipedia has an avenue for discussion where WP:FRINGE issues have been made overly prominent, to the point of false consensus? The only rough equivalents I can think of are arbcom getting involved on disruptive edits in topics like cold fusion, but thankfully edit warring doesn't seem to be very constant, as much as it's a slow ebb and flow of people changing the terminology.

Essentially there is a systematic issue with misinformation on some of the linguistics pages on Wikipedia. I would like to both work on addressing this and not engaging in WP:BLUDGEON-like behaviour, but also am not really sure the appropriate approach considering a lot of peoples' only familiarity with the topic at hand are articles which have clearly been systematically worked on by adherents to what is, at present, considered a fringe theory. (Also, to be clear, I'm aware of the irony that this reply risks looking like WP:BLUDGEON as well, and this isn't my intent or goal, I'm genuinely hoping to get a better handle on how to approach this project of cleaning up misinformation) Warrenmck (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Warrenmck, thanks for posting your message. Wikipedia is not going to remove articles on these topics or censor the sharing of information on these topics. For example, Bigfoot is not considered credible by scientists but we have an article because it's a popular topic that's discussed in the media and by people around the world. Just because something is a real thing doesn't mean it can't have an article here. But that said, if subjects like Nostratic languages are not accepted as part of the academic mainstream or are fringe theories, those articles should absolutely state that and provide citations backing that up. For example, the opening sentence for Nostratic languages could read "Nostratic is a hypothetical macrofamily, but the theory is not accepted by mainstream linguistic theory." I see a lot of info in that article pointing out that this is a fringe theory. Just make that more prominent in the article's opening.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

If you look through my discussions on the Linguistics Wikiproject I do talk about the value of the Nostratic article on Wikipedia, so please don't interpret this as me trying to censor a viewpoint for not agreeing with the academic consensus. It is of course a historically important proposal and while it lacks consensus now, it is definitely a topic that easily meets the notability guidelines of Wikipedia by any measure. I do clearly disagree with that notion for some other extreme-fringe pages like Proto-Dené-Caucasian roots but following the Bomhard AfD I think I'd like to work on cleaning content for a bit rather than AfDing.

I see a lot of info in that article pointing out that this is a fringe theory.

Much of which was added by me in the past few days; I'm sincerely trying to improve the quality of articles, not take a hatchet to content just because it's fringe (I was also working on improving the Bomhard article mid-AfD). The issue I see is that Nostratic has been repeatedly mentioned elsewhere in other articles about languages such as Sumerian (though to be fair I think the linked section there actually handles it appropriately, so, terrible example on my part, maybe this diff is a better example). I have no intention of censoring a viewpoint or knowledge of a specific topic, my explicit goal here is simply to make sure that its status in linguistics is not misrepresented (and to that end I've been working on cleaning up the articles on prominent Nostracitists such as Sergei Starostin only to make it known their theories haven't been met with wide acceptance, not calling them fringe theorists).

I do think, long-term, there are going to be recurring problems with this. There are mentions on the Nostratic talk page of a simmering edit war for years with people removing statements about Nostratic being rejected and the sheer amount of content on Wikipedia which treats is as a given. Note that in the past linguists have invoked WP:BLUESKY to reject Nostratic, so this isn't exactly a hot take in the field. Warrenmck (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)