This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Could you pop the dispute tag on this article please, as it's now locked? Ta. --Ged UK ( talk) 10:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I haven't done speedy work myself, only listened to people complaining on the admin channel and on Wikipedia about various speedy issues. I get the sense that the very high-volume admins who do speedy work (J.Delanoy, Dragonfly, etc) don't think it's important to use exactly the right rationale when deleting, although of course the decision whether to speedy-delete or not is important. They also feel there are specific high-volume times and specific issues where they're more willing to delete than for instance User:I'm Spartacus! would be happy with. I'm wondering if the current candidate was exposed to this "culture" and that was a factor in some of her decisions. Do you think it would be a good idea to have a discussion in WT:RFA about CSD issues so that you and other CSD experts could have a "panel discussion" on CSD to educate RFA people about this? (watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 14:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
When I started New Page Patrolling, i found it very easy to get caught up in the rush to get articles tagged, with something, anything, that some NPPers certainly seem to do. Now i've been here a bit longer, I take my time a little more and usually patrol the back end of the list, and when i do do the front of the list, I still find that people tag for CSD wrongly. The most common mistake I see people making is ignoring an assertion of notability, even when that assertion is plainly made-up or unsourceable. Then some admins (not SoWhy!) will delete this (usually non-notable person), and the error is compounded. Certainly some admin training would be in order, but I'm not sure how that would work. I also removed CSD tags where there is an assertion of notability, and have been told of for removing them, before pointing out that that is perfectly acceptable if I'm not the author. Short version, CSD is a tangled web! --Ged UK ( talk) 15:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello! When reverting my edit to MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown, you ticked the "minor edit" checkbox. Per Help:Minor edit, "a minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." (You were disputing my change, so this obviously wasn't such an instance.) Excepting cases of blatant vandalism, "reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances."
This (the removal of an entire section written in good faith) is another example of an edit that shouldn't have been labeled "minor."
Thanks! — David Levy 16:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I was the one who asked for the semi-protection of the template, what happens in that this annonymous IP keeps pushing his POV into the template by constantly adding Mexico into Central America which as has being solved plenty of times before it is not, that why I and other user keep reverting his edits, but he keeps on doing them, that´s what´s causing this editwar, before this annonymous IP there were 2 other users who also tried to put Mexico into Central America, we talked to them and they understood it was incorrect and we never got into any problem with them, but this IP just doesn´t understand and wants to keep pushing his ways, he says that there´s is no discussion and we´ve told him that that´s because we personally talked to the previous users in their talkpages and that he´s welcome to check them to see what came out of those talks, and doesn´t seem to care, and honestly we are getting tired of dealing with a person who doesn´t even show his face and keeps editing annonymously. -- Supaman89 ( talk) 18:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey SoWhy - thanks for the comment - I appreciate you talking to me directly. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed in how the RfA was going, but it happens and the next one will probably succeed. However, I see the actual process of becoming an admin as quite temporary compared the larger span of our years of work on Wikipedia. A more important issue is that if/when I do become an admin, you and I are probably going to be working together and collaborating on patrols, vandalism, etc. I think it's unlikely that we'll ever have such similar personal interpretations of each of the deletion criteria that we work identically. In fact, often we may completely disagree over whether pages should be included. I think this is useful and healthy, and it's good to hear your view on my tagging (though I wish I'd known before RfA, but that's how it goes). And while obviously I don't agree 100% with your view on my edits, I'm definitely going to be much slower and more careful while patrolling as a result of this RfA, no matter which way it goes. Unfortunately, that means a longer backlog for pages to be patrolled, but other people will step in and it shouldn't be a big deal. Anyway, I welcome criticism both now and in the future if you find a problem in my edits. I know the backlog for admins like yourself can get really horrible on CSD, which is a big part of the reason I wanted to apply for admin in the first place, so I'm looking forward to the time where we can work together to protect the content here. Happy editing to you. Flying Toaster 00:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you, thank you for semi-protecting the bernard_madoff page!! I tried to put in a request a week ago and it was turned down. I was going crazy just cleaning up after all the anonymous IP vandals. I have a feeling though its going to need to be replaced soon though. Thanks again!! Magemirlen ( talk) 05:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Where in your opinion is the line between {{copyvio}}
and {{db-copyvio}}
? See
Faruk yerli; the entire page (if it's still there when you look) was presumably copied from the url given in the db-copyvio warning; but it's just one short sentence. For two sentences, I would delete it, but there must be some point where it's just not enough for a quick delete. (Watchlisting). - Dan
Dank55 (
push to talk) 22:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Can you take a look at the following articles? It has been a while since you protected them.
Cheers! I hope you have a nice day. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 18:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Please don't delete my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beast Jr1 ( talk • contribs)
Hi
Having deleted a couple articles yesterday, I have a question right away. I didn't pay close enough attention to how old the articles were I deleted. When reviewing it, I think that deleting
WormWood (band) was OK since from all I can read, I highly doubt that the topic can be brought past A7. The only other one that was deleted very quickly by me was
Luke Richards as A1 (could have been three other criteria as well), but I had a look at the editor's other contributions which quenched any doubts.
How do you handle CSD tagged articles that are still very very new, only minutes old? In particular with A1, A3, and A7?
Cheers,
Amalthea 12:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I knew that they were right per the criteria, and as I said more time wouldn't have changed anything with them, but was wondering how others were handling those cases. Bookmarking and removing the tag with a message like "Let's give the author some time, I will keep an eye on it and handle it in an hour" seems like a good solution for some such cases.
Cheers,
Amalthea 13:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello there! I've just submitted myself for editor review. I'd be grateful if you could spare a few moments to have a look and comment, as I'd certainly value your opinion. Wikipedia:Editor review/Ged UK. Cheers! --Ged UK ( talk) 12:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, SoWhy. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<. |
I'm curious why the Randolph Scott article was refused semi-protection on the basis of "not enough recent activity" when the edits in question number more than 20 in the past three days, more than the number of near-identical edits that earned the Cary Grant article semi-protection in the same matter. The antagonistic editor is making improper POV changes to both articles on exactly the same subject (whether Grant and Scott were romantically involved), yet the Grant article gets protection but the Scott does not. I'm interested in understanding how things work, not questioning your right to protect or refuse to protect. Thank you. Monkeyzpop ( talk) 21:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Umm hey. Someone gave me an admin's Barnstar but I'm not an admin so what do I do? Abce2 ( talk) 03:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Abce2
You mentioned that you changed the protection level on the TBTL website because multiple users removed allegedy "controversial cited statements" about the show. The statements weren't controversial, per se--they were an attempt to denigrate the host (I think it's clear that the changes made by notabilitypatrol weren't neutral). Further, most/many of the citations linked to a site called blatherwatch, which has been the setting for particularly hateful, obsessive, and often threatening disparagement of the show's host.
This sort of commentary has extended to the TBTL website, where a particular individual attempts to disrupt the website's infrastructure and participation through the comments section. The changes this user made to the TBTL Wikipedia entry were particularly concerning because they were slanderous. In that assertion I'm confident.
Citations for the changed content/original content pre-vandalism can be obtained. But, please understand, many originate from particular episodes of the show, as opposed to text-based content that can be easily linked to. If you have any suggestions for how to cite references originating from a radio program (other than linking to the program's website) please advise. -- MikFantastik ( talk) 11:24, 22 February 2009 (EST)
SoWhy, this is not a "legitimate content dispute." You can follow the source he provides, or you can also read User_talk:Someguy1221#Rodrigo_Avila. The source is legitimate, but the content is the anon's personal and extremely negative interpretation of a quote. Someguy1221 ( talk) 08:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I just came across this user page up for speedy. It seems that you declined the speedy tagging of User:Blakegripling ph due to lacking of rationale but he added back the tag. Perhaps you would like to review it. Cheers. -- Efe ( talk) 09:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah ok thanks, i didn't know what to do for a place so i selected that, but i will know what to do in future now, thanks Macromonkey ( talk) 12:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Gee, thanks. It's not my first time. I probably owe you a bigger debt of thanks for saving me from being the only guy who digs up your history of bad CSD tagging and ruins your RFA. Wily D 14:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I linked a couple of examples of the possible copyright violations regarding Japanese military strategies in 1942 on its talk page. If you find that the article may not be in violation please advise on a suggested course of action for the article as I am looking to cleanup one of the oldest articles marked for cleanup. Perhaps a {{non-free}} related tag? Barkeep Chat | $ 14:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
...could you please have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Calling_me_a_nazi? Thank you! :) — Aitias // discussion 14:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You declined speedy on this article, but if you read it a bit more, I think you'll see that it is nonesense. The author has apparently posted an internal document - including phone numbers - from a US military site onto wikipedia by mistake. It is an internal policy document, and hence it definitely needs to be removed ASAP!
-- Chzz ► 13:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- MBK 004 16:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
so why did u delete Park Lane (band)?????!!! And how do I get the damn code back that took me a long time to make.......????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djspinalot14 ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
how do I get a copy of the article you deleted entitled Park Lane (band)
-- djspinalot14 ( talk) 20:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
-- djspinalot14 ( talk) 20:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 21:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you reconsider your decision to semi protect Verulam School. I think I have kept the vandalism fairly well under control. There will always be vandalism on school pages.
Is the policy still to avoid protecting or semi-protecting just because an article will get a lot of interest? Dolive21 ( talk) 22:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Very well, will do. Thank you for reminding me! Renaissancee ( talk) 00:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Administrator SoWhy
Good-Evening
" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amisha_Patel" is Semi Protected.
According to us, Wikipedia is trusted information source,for these cause Gossip Inputs not allowed in any comportment. My question is removing Gossip Based Information is Vandalism??
Every users have rights to edit misconduct information. So please release the semi protected option from above page.Thanks for your cooperation. we are waiting for your positive response.
We are not against of anything is Good.
The Official Approving Team —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Official Approving Team (
talk •
contribs) 13:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Can't disagree with your reasoning here; what I would have done, but a second pair of eyes is useful. Let's hope his workmates (?) don't find his cached password. -- Rodhull andemu 20:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, The SSNP is not national-socialist. It being based on the Nazi Party is the opinion of a few scholars, and the SSNP was founded before the Nazi Party came to prominence. Please unprotect the article so that the information could be properly edited. Oumf1234 ( talk) 13:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the problem here. The Zoo Tycoon 2 article is being CONTINUALLY being edited...it's been edited FOUR times in the space of a week. And the person who is doing the disruptive edits CAN'T be blocked, because it is a free-flowing IP, which changes every day.
Someone is deliberately vandalising that article and there is nothing that can be done about it except to protect it. CBFan ( talk) 14:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
You have recently locked the article. There is no dispute going on here. The last person to make an edit was a sock puppet and was supposed to have been blocked per: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kevin7557/Archive. Belasted ( talk) 14:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. We have a discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#Automatic_patrolling_after_a_tag_is_added about the viability of setting up a bot that will mark as patrolled any unpatrolled page that has a deletion tag on it. I thought of this after finding, da after day, articles that had been tagged for deletion (usually CSD, but sometimes AfD or PROD) but not marked as patrolled. Because many editors forget to patrol the page before tagging, this means that some patrolled pages get more than one person looking at it, unnecessarily, in my view. As one of the most respected admins on anything related to CSD (and I don't mean that to sound quite as suck-upy as it does!), I'd be grateful for your comments! Cheers. -- Ged UK 20:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
While I'm here; how would you feel if there were no G1? G1 seems to be used mostly in a bitey way. For instance, this got a G1 tag: Beast Mode: "Beast mode is a common term used in the video game world, meaning, "To completley obliterate the competition". This phrase was coined by a young man, [name withheld]. Legend has it, that said it after scoring 12 touchdowns in under a minute in Madden 09." The tagger couldn't think of a better category than "nonsense", but do we need to insult the editor with "incoherent" and "gibberish"? Wouldn't it be more tactful to use G2, A1, or A7 for things that are currently tagged G1? - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 04:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
You declined the A7 in January; it was just tagged as spam and I speedied it, but I'd be willing to be talked out of it. Two things swayed me: a Google search gave me page after page of links created by the company, and I just don't want Wikipedia to be part of their marketing mix; and every paragraph talked about how they're in the business of using the internet to promote their clients. I decided that I believed that this was indeed their purpose. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 03:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you please explain why you declined the A7 speedy delete for the corp. advertisement article Sitecore? When did making a product equal notability for a company? 16x9 ( talk) 22:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 02:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you protected the article. I would be very gratefull if you could consider protecting it after reverting it prior to the following edit by a disruptive SPA [3] which violates WP:BLP. As this article is regarding the Sri Lankan Defence secretary who is also the presidents brother, and the article is going to be protected till the 6th of march and getting a prominent exposure till then I would be gratefull if you could consider protecting after reverting to the version prior to the above edit, to prevent people getting the wrong impression about him. Kerr avon ( talk) 17:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you lower the protection level on Brian Dawkins it is now official-- Yankees10 19:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you protect it again, but so that only IPs and new users cant edit, theres a buch of vandalism-- Yankees10 21:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I've made some changes to the pure semantics of your request with regard to the said "current" username and the "target"; please take a look to see if I was correct in my assumptions. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 22:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 08:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, you semi-protected Template:Tracklist back in December, following up on a respective request of mine on WP:RFP. To my embarrassment, I did not include a vital sub-template ( Template:Tracklist/Track) in that request and even though that part is not that obvious to the untrained eye, it just got vandalized, along with its doc page. Could I ask you to rectify my oversight by also giving semi-protection to the sub-template (and either template's doc page, if that's not unusual procedure). – Cyrus XIII ( talk) 16:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't shake the feeling that this clarification was done for my benefit. ;) Cheers, Amalthea 11:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The person that you blocked and that is behind IP 69.158.144.231 is highly probable that he is the same person that consistently has been evading blocks in the past, using multiple accounts or just editing anonimously. Please take a look at my user page for a detailed list of evidence, especially the articles he edits, because this is a complex case (he has been doing this for almost 2 years and a half). Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 22:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
What notable group did they split from? This rec-league team (i.e. you and your buddies form a group and go to the local city's parks & recreation department and sign up for a league) split from the Timbers Army Football Club in 2008, as the article explains. They linked Timbers Army (a fan club for the Portland Timbers), but they did not split from that, as the article indicates. The Timbers Army Football Club is not notable, and they split from that. This isn't even a semi-pro team. Aboutmovies ( talk) 19:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
A user just deleted a lot of content from a newly created article however it does not violate wikipedia's guidelines and its relevent to the article. Can you please review this as well as the discussion page of My Adventure With Green Day -- UnTrooper ( talk) 20:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
You suggested that if I posted a request here, you might be able to get me the former text from a now deleted page. The deletion log read:
· 20:27, 23 February 2009 Wizardman (Talk | contribs) deleted "Al Steiner" ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Steiner)
Thanks so much, and please let me know if you need further information to pull this rabbit out of your hat. I have a copy of the blurb from Google, for example.
--Kayti23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayti23 ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Found, appreciated, and thanks also for all newbie tips. May other recipients of your assistance be similarly grateful. 216.254.33.131 ( talk) 21:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Kayti23
OK. Generally, what would be considered sufficient vandalism to warrant SP? Babakathy ( talk) 11:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there SoWhy. I have had tremendous respect for your work at CAT:CSD, so I wondered if you could possibly give me a review on my work at Special:NewPages. I had a similar review a while back. Balloonman told me that my work wasn't exactly the best, and I should probably shape up at NPP. I just wanted to ask you how you think I am doing right now. I patrol nearly everything I review, so my patrol log is probably something useful to check out if you are willing to do so. (Note: The high live/deleted ratio for patrolled articles is from working at the end of the backlog). Also, if you wish, here are my last 5000 contributions.
I would appreciate very much if you could do this for me. I feel that finding out what I'm doing wrong now is better than doing so six months from now, or twelve, or never. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 03:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
“ | Kofi Siriboe (born March 2, 1994, Los Angeles, California) is an American child actor best known for his role as Javy Hall in the 2008 biopic The Longshots (...) | ” |
I've tried to sort through the 3 primary articles regarding speedy deletion: WP:DPR, WP:DEL, and WP:GTD. I was confused as to how an article, in this case, a stub can be created without any verifiable information or sources. I believe the article lacks any context to the 75th Ranger Regiment or any organization associated with it. I would think that based on that logic, the article would meet some criteria for deletion. Your thoughts? - Signaleer ( talk) 17:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Could you pop the dispute tag on this article please, as it's now locked? Ta. --Ged UK ( talk) 10:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I haven't done speedy work myself, only listened to people complaining on the admin channel and on Wikipedia about various speedy issues. I get the sense that the very high-volume admins who do speedy work (J.Delanoy, Dragonfly, etc) don't think it's important to use exactly the right rationale when deleting, although of course the decision whether to speedy-delete or not is important. They also feel there are specific high-volume times and specific issues where they're more willing to delete than for instance User:I'm Spartacus! would be happy with. I'm wondering if the current candidate was exposed to this "culture" and that was a factor in some of her decisions. Do you think it would be a good idea to have a discussion in WT:RFA about CSD issues so that you and other CSD experts could have a "panel discussion" on CSD to educate RFA people about this? (watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 14:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
When I started New Page Patrolling, i found it very easy to get caught up in the rush to get articles tagged, with something, anything, that some NPPers certainly seem to do. Now i've been here a bit longer, I take my time a little more and usually patrol the back end of the list, and when i do do the front of the list, I still find that people tag for CSD wrongly. The most common mistake I see people making is ignoring an assertion of notability, even when that assertion is plainly made-up or unsourceable. Then some admins (not SoWhy!) will delete this (usually non-notable person), and the error is compounded. Certainly some admin training would be in order, but I'm not sure how that would work. I also removed CSD tags where there is an assertion of notability, and have been told of for removing them, before pointing out that that is perfectly acceptable if I'm not the author. Short version, CSD is a tangled web! --Ged UK ( talk) 15:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello! When reverting my edit to MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown, you ticked the "minor edit" checkbox. Per Help:Minor edit, "a minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." (You were disputing my change, so this obviously wasn't such an instance.) Excepting cases of blatant vandalism, "reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances."
This (the removal of an entire section written in good faith) is another example of an edit that shouldn't have been labeled "minor."
Thanks! — David Levy 16:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I was the one who asked for the semi-protection of the template, what happens in that this annonymous IP keeps pushing his POV into the template by constantly adding Mexico into Central America which as has being solved plenty of times before it is not, that why I and other user keep reverting his edits, but he keeps on doing them, that´s what´s causing this editwar, before this annonymous IP there were 2 other users who also tried to put Mexico into Central America, we talked to them and they understood it was incorrect and we never got into any problem with them, but this IP just doesn´t understand and wants to keep pushing his ways, he says that there´s is no discussion and we´ve told him that that´s because we personally talked to the previous users in their talkpages and that he´s welcome to check them to see what came out of those talks, and doesn´t seem to care, and honestly we are getting tired of dealing with a person who doesn´t even show his face and keeps editing annonymously. -- Supaman89 ( talk) 18:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey SoWhy - thanks for the comment - I appreciate you talking to me directly. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed in how the RfA was going, but it happens and the next one will probably succeed. However, I see the actual process of becoming an admin as quite temporary compared the larger span of our years of work on Wikipedia. A more important issue is that if/when I do become an admin, you and I are probably going to be working together and collaborating on patrols, vandalism, etc. I think it's unlikely that we'll ever have such similar personal interpretations of each of the deletion criteria that we work identically. In fact, often we may completely disagree over whether pages should be included. I think this is useful and healthy, and it's good to hear your view on my tagging (though I wish I'd known before RfA, but that's how it goes). And while obviously I don't agree 100% with your view on my edits, I'm definitely going to be much slower and more careful while patrolling as a result of this RfA, no matter which way it goes. Unfortunately, that means a longer backlog for pages to be patrolled, but other people will step in and it shouldn't be a big deal. Anyway, I welcome criticism both now and in the future if you find a problem in my edits. I know the backlog for admins like yourself can get really horrible on CSD, which is a big part of the reason I wanted to apply for admin in the first place, so I'm looking forward to the time where we can work together to protect the content here. Happy editing to you. Flying Toaster 00:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you, thank you for semi-protecting the bernard_madoff page!! I tried to put in a request a week ago and it was turned down. I was going crazy just cleaning up after all the anonymous IP vandals. I have a feeling though its going to need to be replaced soon though. Thanks again!! Magemirlen ( talk) 05:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Where in your opinion is the line between {{copyvio}}
and {{db-copyvio}}
? See
Faruk yerli; the entire page (if it's still there when you look) was presumably copied from the url given in the db-copyvio warning; but it's just one short sentence. For two sentences, I would delete it, but there must be some point where it's just not enough for a quick delete. (Watchlisting). - Dan
Dank55 (
push to talk) 22:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Can you take a look at the following articles? It has been a while since you protected them.
Cheers! I hope you have a nice day. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 18:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Please don't delete my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beast Jr1 ( talk • contribs)
Hi
Having deleted a couple articles yesterday, I have a question right away. I didn't pay close enough attention to how old the articles were I deleted. When reviewing it, I think that deleting
WormWood (band) was OK since from all I can read, I highly doubt that the topic can be brought past A7. The only other one that was deleted very quickly by me was
Luke Richards as A1 (could have been three other criteria as well), but I had a look at the editor's other contributions which quenched any doubts.
How do you handle CSD tagged articles that are still very very new, only minutes old? In particular with A1, A3, and A7?
Cheers,
Amalthea 12:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I knew that they were right per the criteria, and as I said more time wouldn't have changed anything with them, but was wondering how others were handling those cases. Bookmarking and removing the tag with a message like "Let's give the author some time, I will keep an eye on it and handle it in an hour" seems like a good solution for some such cases.
Cheers,
Amalthea 13:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello there! I've just submitted myself for editor review. I'd be grateful if you could spare a few moments to have a look and comment, as I'd certainly value your opinion. Wikipedia:Editor review/Ged UK. Cheers! --Ged UK ( talk) 12:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, SoWhy. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<. |
I'm curious why the Randolph Scott article was refused semi-protection on the basis of "not enough recent activity" when the edits in question number more than 20 in the past three days, more than the number of near-identical edits that earned the Cary Grant article semi-protection in the same matter. The antagonistic editor is making improper POV changes to both articles on exactly the same subject (whether Grant and Scott were romantically involved), yet the Grant article gets protection but the Scott does not. I'm interested in understanding how things work, not questioning your right to protect or refuse to protect. Thank you. Monkeyzpop ( talk) 21:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Umm hey. Someone gave me an admin's Barnstar but I'm not an admin so what do I do? Abce2 ( talk) 03:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Abce2
You mentioned that you changed the protection level on the TBTL website because multiple users removed allegedy "controversial cited statements" about the show. The statements weren't controversial, per se--they were an attempt to denigrate the host (I think it's clear that the changes made by notabilitypatrol weren't neutral). Further, most/many of the citations linked to a site called blatherwatch, which has been the setting for particularly hateful, obsessive, and often threatening disparagement of the show's host.
This sort of commentary has extended to the TBTL website, where a particular individual attempts to disrupt the website's infrastructure and participation through the comments section. The changes this user made to the TBTL Wikipedia entry were particularly concerning because they were slanderous. In that assertion I'm confident.
Citations for the changed content/original content pre-vandalism can be obtained. But, please understand, many originate from particular episodes of the show, as opposed to text-based content that can be easily linked to. If you have any suggestions for how to cite references originating from a radio program (other than linking to the program's website) please advise. -- MikFantastik ( talk) 11:24, 22 February 2009 (EST)
SoWhy, this is not a "legitimate content dispute." You can follow the source he provides, or you can also read User_talk:Someguy1221#Rodrigo_Avila. The source is legitimate, but the content is the anon's personal and extremely negative interpretation of a quote. Someguy1221 ( talk) 08:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I just came across this user page up for speedy. It seems that you declined the speedy tagging of User:Blakegripling ph due to lacking of rationale but he added back the tag. Perhaps you would like to review it. Cheers. -- Efe ( talk) 09:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah ok thanks, i didn't know what to do for a place so i selected that, but i will know what to do in future now, thanks Macromonkey ( talk) 12:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Gee, thanks. It's not my first time. I probably owe you a bigger debt of thanks for saving me from being the only guy who digs up your history of bad CSD tagging and ruins your RFA. Wily D 14:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I linked a couple of examples of the possible copyright violations regarding Japanese military strategies in 1942 on its talk page. If you find that the article may not be in violation please advise on a suggested course of action for the article as I am looking to cleanup one of the oldest articles marked for cleanup. Perhaps a {{non-free}} related tag? Barkeep Chat | $ 14:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
...could you please have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Calling_me_a_nazi? Thank you! :) — Aitias // discussion 14:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You declined speedy on this article, but if you read it a bit more, I think you'll see that it is nonesense. The author has apparently posted an internal document - including phone numbers - from a US military site onto wikipedia by mistake. It is an internal policy document, and hence it definitely needs to be removed ASAP!
-- Chzz ► 13:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- MBK 004 16:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
so why did u delete Park Lane (band)?????!!! And how do I get the damn code back that took me a long time to make.......????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djspinalot14 ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
how do I get a copy of the article you deleted entitled Park Lane (band)
-- djspinalot14 ( talk) 20:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
-- djspinalot14 ( talk) 20:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 21:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you reconsider your decision to semi protect Verulam School. I think I have kept the vandalism fairly well under control. There will always be vandalism on school pages.
Is the policy still to avoid protecting or semi-protecting just because an article will get a lot of interest? Dolive21 ( talk) 22:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Very well, will do. Thank you for reminding me! Renaissancee ( talk) 00:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Administrator SoWhy
Good-Evening
" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amisha_Patel" is Semi Protected.
According to us, Wikipedia is trusted information source,for these cause Gossip Inputs not allowed in any comportment. My question is removing Gossip Based Information is Vandalism??
Every users have rights to edit misconduct information. So please release the semi protected option from above page.Thanks for your cooperation. we are waiting for your positive response.
We are not against of anything is Good.
The Official Approving Team —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Official Approving Team (
talk •
contribs) 13:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Can't disagree with your reasoning here; what I would have done, but a second pair of eyes is useful. Let's hope his workmates (?) don't find his cached password. -- Rodhull andemu 20:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, The SSNP is not national-socialist. It being based on the Nazi Party is the opinion of a few scholars, and the SSNP was founded before the Nazi Party came to prominence. Please unprotect the article so that the information could be properly edited. Oumf1234 ( talk) 13:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the problem here. The Zoo Tycoon 2 article is being CONTINUALLY being edited...it's been edited FOUR times in the space of a week. And the person who is doing the disruptive edits CAN'T be blocked, because it is a free-flowing IP, which changes every day.
Someone is deliberately vandalising that article and there is nothing that can be done about it except to protect it. CBFan ( talk) 14:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
You have recently locked the article. There is no dispute going on here. The last person to make an edit was a sock puppet and was supposed to have been blocked per: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kevin7557/Archive. Belasted ( talk) 14:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. We have a discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#Automatic_patrolling_after_a_tag_is_added about the viability of setting up a bot that will mark as patrolled any unpatrolled page that has a deletion tag on it. I thought of this after finding, da after day, articles that had been tagged for deletion (usually CSD, but sometimes AfD or PROD) but not marked as patrolled. Because many editors forget to patrol the page before tagging, this means that some patrolled pages get more than one person looking at it, unnecessarily, in my view. As one of the most respected admins on anything related to CSD (and I don't mean that to sound quite as suck-upy as it does!), I'd be grateful for your comments! Cheers. -- Ged UK 20:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
While I'm here; how would you feel if there were no G1? G1 seems to be used mostly in a bitey way. For instance, this got a G1 tag: Beast Mode: "Beast mode is a common term used in the video game world, meaning, "To completley obliterate the competition". This phrase was coined by a young man, [name withheld]. Legend has it, that said it after scoring 12 touchdowns in under a minute in Madden 09." The tagger couldn't think of a better category than "nonsense", but do we need to insult the editor with "incoherent" and "gibberish"? Wouldn't it be more tactful to use G2, A1, or A7 for things that are currently tagged G1? - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 04:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
You declined the A7 in January; it was just tagged as spam and I speedied it, but I'd be willing to be talked out of it. Two things swayed me: a Google search gave me page after page of links created by the company, and I just don't want Wikipedia to be part of their marketing mix; and every paragraph talked about how they're in the business of using the internet to promote their clients. I decided that I believed that this was indeed their purpose. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 03:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you please explain why you declined the A7 speedy delete for the corp. advertisement article Sitecore? When did making a product equal notability for a company? 16x9 ( talk) 22:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 02:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you protected the article. I would be very gratefull if you could consider protecting it after reverting it prior to the following edit by a disruptive SPA [3] which violates WP:BLP. As this article is regarding the Sri Lankan Defence secretary who is also the presidents brother, and the article is going to be protected till the 6th of march and getting a prominent exposure till then I would be gratefull if you could consider protecting after reverting to the version prior to the above edit, to prevent people getting the wrong impression about him. Kerr avon ( talk) 17:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you lower the protection level on Brian Dawkins it is now official-- Yankees10 19:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you protect it again, but so that only IPs and new users cant edit, theres a buch of vandalism-- Yankees10 21:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I've made some changes to the pure semantics of your request with regard to the said "current" username and the "target"; please take a look to see if I was correct in my assumptions. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 22:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 08:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, you semi-protected Template:Tracklist back in December, following up on a respective request of mine on WP:RFP. To my embarrassment, I did not include a vital sub-template ( Template:Tracklist/Track) in that request and even though that part is not that obvious to the untrained eye, it just got vandalized, along with its doc page. Could I ask you to rectify my oversight by also giving semi-protection to the sub-template (and either template's doc page, if that's not unusual procedure). – Cyrus XIII ( talk) 16:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't shake the feeling that this clarification was done for my benefit. ;) Cheers, Amalthea 11:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The person that you blocked and that is behind IP 69.158.144.231 is highly probable that he is the same person that consistently has been evading blocks in the past, using multiple accounts or just editing anonimously. Please take a look at my user page for a detailed list of evidence, especially the articles he edits, because this is a complex case (he has been doing this for almost 2 years and a half). Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 22:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
What notable group did they split from? This rec-league team (i.e. you and your buddies form a group and go to the local city's parks & recreation department and sign up for a league) split from the Timbers Army Football Club in 2008, as the article explains. They linked Timbers Army (a fan club for the Portland Timbers), but they did not split from that, as the article indicates. The Timbers Army Football Club is not notable, and they split from that. This isn't even a semi-pro team. Aboutmovies ( talk) 19:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
A user just deleted a lot of content from a newly created article however it does not violate wikipedia's guidelines and its relevent to the article. Can you please review this as well as the discussion page of My Adventure With Green Day -- UnTrooper ( talk) 20:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
You suggested that if I posted a request here, you might be able to get me the former text from a now deleted page. The deletion log read:
· 20:27, 23 February 2009 Wizardman (Talk | contribs) deleted "Al Steiner" ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Steiner)
Thanks so much, and please let me know if you need further information to pull this rabbit out of your hat. I have a copy of the blurb from Google, for example.
--Kayti23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayti23 ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Found, appreciated, and thanks also for all newbie tips. May other recipients of your assistance be similarly grateful. 216.254.33.131 ( talk) 21:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Kayti23
OK. Generally, what would be considered sufficient vandalism to warrant SP? Babakathy ( talk) 11:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there SoWhy. I have had tremendous respect for your work at CAT:CSD, so I wondered if you could possibly give me a review on my work at Special:NewPages. I had a similar review a while back. Balloonman told me that my work wasn't exactly the best, and I should probably shape up at NPP. I just wanted to ask you how you think I am doing right now. I patrol nearly everything I review, so my patrol log is probably something useful to check out if you are willing to do so. (Note: The high live/deleted ratio for patrolled articles is from working at the end of the backlog). Also, if you wish, here are my last 5000 contributions.
I would appreciate very much if you could do this for me. I feel that finding out what I'm doing wrong now is better than doing so six months from now, or twelve, or never. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 03:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
“ | Kofi Siriboe (born March 2, 1994, Los Angeles, California) is an American child actor best known for his role as Javy Hall in the 2008 biopic The Longshots (...) | ” |
I've tried to sort through the 3 primary articles regarding speedy deletion: WP:DPR, WP:DEL, and WP:GTD. I was confused as to how an article, in this case, a stub can be created without any verifiable information or sources. I believe the article lacks any context to the 75th Ranger Regiment or any organization associated with it. I would think that based on that logic, the article would meet some criteria for deletion. Your thoughts? - Signaleer ( talk) 17:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)