![]() | 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
why did you delate PBW page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach wikipoff ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 04:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Can you protect the article San Jose del Monte City? Because there are many vandalism in that page. Only semi-protected. My english is not good. Thanks! -- Secaundis • ( myTalk) • ( myContribs) 07:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Mind salting this for a bit? 2 creations today, 1 creation two days ago; the people involved don't seem to be getting the message, so maybe preventing its recreation for a bit might slow them down. Ironholds ( talk) 09:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I disagree with your decision to decline this speedy. I think it was you who gave me a tip that I should use A7 if there was any non-promotional material to be salvaged. I found none, but of course, what's "promotional" and what's "factual" is often a matter of opinion. Anyway, I hope you don't see my latest edits as a case of WP:POINT, because they weren't at all intended as such. decltype ( talk) 13:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. In regard to the speedy deletion of SureThing page, I never meant that it was qualified for software rule. The rule that I mentioned and referred to, was A7 web content and not software. This rule says, if a page is about a person, an organization, and/or a web page. and then it says it does not apply to softwares. Thanks. Parvazbato59 ( talk) 16:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
This does not look right. There is something wrong with it. I don't know what I have done wrong. Thanks Parvazbato59 ( talk) 17:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
importScript('User:Jnothman/afd_helper/script.js');
Hi, per the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial disappearance decision to relist, perhaps you can reconsider since the nub of the matter was the non-existence of the term in the literature, not the actual content that followed thereon. No need to reply - whatever you think is best is fine. Eusebeus ( talk) 16:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you (rightfully) removed the speedy delete tag to Triplets Paradox, so in order to get rid of this nonsense, I have taken another approach with this and this. I think this is better indeed. Thanks and cheers, DVdm ( talk) 17:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your swift decision on Marketcetera, of which I am the original author. I was going to stamp the talk page as settled and quote the time and admin (yourself) that settled it. Is this good practice? Also, incidentally, is there a general policy for quoting another user or referencing his/her actions in this kind of way? Thanks. Wikiphile1603 ( talk) 22:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Would you agree with me that this is substantially the same as Sudesh sivarasu, recently deleted at AFD? The scholar hits were specifically discussed there... If so, I think some deleting and salting may be in order. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi soWhy
Thank you for your response to my remarks regarding this subject and I have noted the procedural guidelines you brought to my attention. I will follow these in future. (I hope I'm making the comment in the right place and correctly signed this time).
I will pursue the lines you suggest regarding the Haramein article.
Thanks again for the reply.
Indigopete ( talk) 11:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
He thanks for reverting the edit of De Lorenzo's Tomato Pies by Exeunt. I always assume good faith but I have reason to believe he has some kind of personal bias against these articles. I'm not sure if it was bad faith but if you look at other articles he edited after he stalked me such as 53rd and 6th, Joe's Shanghai (rated as best dumpling in New York City I know this one is not as notable as the others), and Serendipity III you can see that he blatantly removed massive amounts of cited material I added when trying to push these articles up to WP Standards. The most shocking is this reversion here. He actually reverted my edit which had a large amount of citations to a vandalized version. He might be trying to remove information in order to add speedy tags. It's all to early to tell just giving you a heads up. Valoem talk 14:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear,Please don't indulge in a mission to malign Sai Baba. May I ask you of which branch of Christianity you belong to. Court has not proved any thing against him. Who are you to malign him? You guys are bent on destroying other cultures. You did the same to Muslims time and again. I hope,God punishes you for your wrong-doings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitzorba ( talk • contribs) 06:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
You said to "just come back here and ask", so here's another conundrum: These three articles are all written to promote businesses of "Holiday Extras Holdings", and they all have similar problems:
The author of the Better choice parking article ( Jonclarke84 ( talk · contribs)) has deleted the {{ Primarysources}}, {{ advert}} and {{ prod}} three times today, having only very slightly improved the article. I don't want fall foul of WP:3RR by restoring the tags, so I've put warnings on the talk pages instead. Am I going about this the right way? What should I do next, and when? - Pointillist ( talk) 16:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw you declined the Speedy Deletion Tags on the article about Mohit Shah [ [1]] and referred to Google News [ [2]]. Are you referring to this News Article [3]? This News article refers to one Mohit Shah who was the former Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court in India. The article under consideration is about Mohit Shah who is a sophomore at GWU per External Link #4 [4] in the article [ [5]]. I was wondering whether I'm correct in my assumption here [ [6]]. Thanks a lot in advance. -- Louisprandtl ( talk) 08:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello again! I have another question:) What is the tag for "no reference", for adding it to articles that have no reference? I know the once for improving reference but not this one. Is there a code that I can add to my monobook to make the use of these warning and reference tags easier? Best Regards Parvazbato59 ( talk) 17:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. It doesn't look like blatant vandalism to me, but rather a content dispute. I'll be away for a bit, so feel free to deny/accept the request. – Juliancolton Talk · Review 22:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, the reason I used DB-Move was... for a page move. Rwiggum ( Talk/ Contrib) 03:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
db-move|WHAT TO MOVE HERE}}
, otherwise the deleting admin cannot evaluate if the request makes sense as cleanup or not. And honestly, I do not see a reason to do so because the EPs are not entitled "The Bug Sessions" but "Bug Sessions" and as such that would be the correct name for the article. If you dispute this, which is your right, I'd say you need to discuss it first because I do not think it's uncontroversial to rename this article. After all, at least
IllaZilla (
talk ·
contribs) is probably disputing the correctness of this request as they have moved it to the current location in the first place not 15 days ago. Regards
So
Why
10:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)v1.0a7 is out. I added in the Close link on the daily pages for FfD and TfD along with a Close link on the top link of an individual AfD page. I'm still thinking about your other suggestion and the other missing features that I need to add. Can you see if I broke anything? I don't think I did, but you never know. =) -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 20:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw that you declined my protection request for my userpage because "Pages are not protected pre-emptively", and i understand that. But can you please tell me why my request was declined when i've seen multiple userpages that have been indefinitely semi-protected just because the user requested it, and that have never been vandalized or edited by another user? -- Frehley Space Ace 07:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
IP user is putting that blog source back into the article, I don't want to get caught up with WP:3RR. Not sure what should be done, I'll try requesting page protection. Momusufan ( talk) 17:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
IP made a legal threat over my placing of a whois template on his page, see here. Momusufan ( talk) 17:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I decided to expedite the process and reported the IP to AIV, based on 3RR violations and the legal threat. Momusufan ( talk) 17:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know...using Huggle, I reverted one edit on the Menudo article that used a personal blog as a source, and the anonymous user ( 66.229.250.178) whose edit I reverted is now pretending to be you and gave me a poorly-forged 3RR warning on my talk page ( here) - SoSaysChappy ( talk) 17:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete the John Huong article? I had a look through the various reasons you wrote out, and I still don't know. Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 17:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Jayron32 blocked him for the legal threat, Glad thats over. Momusufan ( talk) 18:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
It appears the IP withdrew the legal threat, under conditions from the admin:
"Legal threat withdrawn. However, if you make disruptive edits, edit war or remove the IP template from this page again you will be swiftly reblocked. If you don't want other editors to see your IP, log on with a user account."
I hope he learns his lesson but I doubt it. Momusufan ( talk) 18:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for protecting this page. Could you maybe extend it by about 3 or 4 hours though? The current protection will expire at 8PM ET, which is 1 hour into the event. The PPV articles usually get heavy vandalism during the event, the event will end about 11PM ET (which I think is 03:00 UTC). TJ Spyke 18:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
A handful of edits in the past two days from vandalism-only accounts that were immediately blocked does not seem to be enough justification for a month semi-protection. Are you sure it's necessary? It seems like enough people are watching the article that any vandalism gets reverted fairly quickly. Glass Cobra 22:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, it meets the criteria for speedy deletion because the article consists of just two external links. Secondly, the previous AfD was closed by User:Tavix so the template would have been removed anyway. I was the original nominator of that AfD. JamesBurns ( talk)
Hello again. G11? I must admit that I didn't see that one coming :) Would you mind giving an explanation?
Thanks for your time. decltype ( talk) 09:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy, I've just deleted Template:User CVU4-en at the author's request, but I'm still seeing a shedload of userbox pages with user requests to delete, have I mucked something up or is it just the servers taking time to catch up - do you see 76 pages with author request to delete? I thought all the transcluded userboxes would just go red. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. My mistake, as I have lost experience with the WikiScript formatting. Thanks! Marlith (Talk) 15:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 20:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I am just wondering why my user page was on CAT:CSD in the first place. Was it a glitch that just "happened"? Any response would be great, Thanks. Shanman7 ( talk) 21:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you please complete the afd nomination for Henry Hübchen? Not a notable actor by any standard. 212.95.57.23 ( talk) 02:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for your comments in reference to my page, truth be told; I thoroughly read through the comments made on my page.
It has been a compilation of my secretary and a person who works on my PR management.
To address a few of the concerns brought up in both the discussions and speedy deletion messages, I'd like to preface by saying first that there may have been citation errors, when brought to my attention to review the Wikipedia my knowledge of how to code it was unknown. Not only did the posting process not make sense to me, I was getting confused on the citation process and the buttons above this window I'm typing in, didn't really make much sense.
So therefore I handed it over to staffers.
http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/2007/10/04/News/Gw.Students.Start.Indias.First.Hybrid.Power.Plant-3011644.shtml http://www.linkedin.com/in/mohitrshah http://www.zibb.com/article/4690884/Gujarat+set+to+get+investments+in+solar+power+sector http://www.collegemagazine.com/content/sophomore_entrepreneurs_high_solar_power http://www.vibrantgujarat.com/mous_2009/pdf/sector-mous/power-renewable.pdf
http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/record/2005/2005_E01189.pdf
Those are links to articles that show 1) Who I am. 2) What I'm doing. 3) Gives me the credibility.
The reason I suppose my story is interesting, is because I'm constantly fighting an uphill battle, I'm 21 years old, I do philanthropic work, I served the community countlessly, I've left college to pursue a environmentally friendly project. Why I'm different is because I'm 21 years old, because I signed an agreement with the Government of Gujarat for a project worth 1 billion dollars. Why I believe it's different is because I've spent my entire youth career as an advocate for education, leadership, and now I'm changing the world at a time when not many people wanted to. 1 year + ago no one cared for alternative energy, and now the boom! I'd associate myself as a part of that reason.
To be honest; I thought it would be motivational for other people who don't know my story and don't have the ability to speak with me in person to learn it. Regardless of whether you decide to stand by your decision or, reinstate my Wikipedia page, I respect your decision. I just know whether it be tomorrow or a year from now, I will make my story heard.
I thank you for your time and patience and consideration, hopefully it all works out, if not -- next time. If you choose to keep the page, maybe you could help me with the formatting of it, and I'll do it myself with assistance to meet your criteria, I feel it's all there, just up to you guys.
Thanks you. OH and sorry for the terrible formatting.
Mshah14 (
talk)
04:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)mshah14
Thank you for pointing that, its my mistake, but as you can see, some others did the same, even cluebot did :-), anyways, sorry and I ll be more careful, and thank you for your time Maen. K. A. ( talk) 07:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
You have mail. ∗
\ / (
⁂)
08:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to try and make the filter you requested. Can you give an example of an edit that got it wrong that I can use in testing? - Mgm| (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy, Thanks for picking that up for me. In the future, should I tag musicals as {{ prod}}? I've seen a couple tonight, and wasn't sure what to do with them. Also, I see you have a mighty awesome template above this 'New Section' page, can I ask how you accomplished something so great? Or is it a trade secret ;-)? Cheers — Deon555 talkI'm BACK! 11:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You declined my speedy request for Inter-organizational systems on the grounds that it does have context. Can you find anything in the article that explains what inter-organizational systems are? It's all a specific story about Walmart, and provides no context for the purported topic of the article. It's as though someone created an article titled "Literature" and then wrote an article that didn't contain the word "literature" once and was instead all about some business issue facing one of the major booksellers. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 12:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I should have looked further down the list! I missed the user pages templates. Thank you for taking care of the deletion, anyway, :-) Hope all is well with you! Maedin\ talk 12:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey.. noticed that Interroll article that you (I'd like to say we, but you did the work :P) nuked is back again. Can you confirm if it's the same editor? I thought I warned him, but the talk page is a redlink, so either I forgot, or there are multiple accounts. Cheers — Deon555 talkI'm BACK! 12:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for protecting Middle Power. Please can you also consider protecting Great Power, where removal of sourced material without explanation by the same IP hopper is continuing? Thanks. Viewfinder ( talk) 15:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
With this edit you declined my speedy deletion request, saying this band had "multiple claims of notability". The same named article has already been speedily deleted twice before, in March 2008 and in February 2009. And did you actually check out their references upon which editors are expected to verify their multiple claims of notability? One link to their own myspace page [8]; one link to a page that only offers a redirect to their own myspace page [9]; and one link where they are briefly mentioned in the last comment on a blog about some kind of flashmob event [10] - hardly solid claims to notability. Yet, they provide no evidence of any association with Abercrombie and Fitch, no evidence of having packed out a 15,000 seat venue in Texas, and no evidence of having spoken to the BBC - all events that could make them notable. Please can I urge you to reconsider your decision to decline my speedy deletion request. Thanks. Astronaut ( talk) 13:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you may have speedied the article under some other forms. I encountered it under yet another, but changed the name to this & did not delete it, as it didn't seem too promotional for an article to be made of it, if he;s notable, though it obviously needs much work. Just letting you know DGG ( talk) 14:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
SoWhy - thanks for reviewing my CSD on The Prankster's Dilemma, however I am still confused by the result. This page was created on April Fools day with multiple sources listed but no inline citations. It also quotes "experts agree" but doesn't identify the sources. It also quotes the Paradox of the Gullible which has never existed. Seems to me to be an April Fools joke... but if you still disagree I'll review it from another perspective. JCutter ( talk) 03:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting it in The Right Version TM :). Could you tweak the protection to 11 April - that's when the episode airs, and an image that doesn't fail NFCC will be available?
Black Kite 18:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Actually forget that, see below
Black Kite
18:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for protecting the article (though you did the wrong version :p !!) Could you, however, time-limit it to some time before the 11 April, since the current indef-level is going to cause problems as more material about the upcoming episode emerges over the coming days? It would be absolutely crippling to not be able to edit the article at all until after it's aired! Thanks! ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 18:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know why you have deleted my article - this ia a New system for economic development to help the people of the world - i have contacted the Wikipedia Information Team to shine more light on this dispute - their are many other articles on wikipedia that in my opinion are adverstiment and are not encyclopedia worthy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Idol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Wants_to_Be_a_Millionaire%3F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySpace
their is also a press release on the subject http://www.prlog.org/10207508-the-bank-for-international-ideas-will-facilitate-economic-development-created-by-leonard-johnson.html
-- Bankleonard ( talk) 03:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:ATHLETE states that an individual player is only notable if tehy have played in a fully professional game. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/Notability_guidelines. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I have changed my tactic to PROD to eliminate the need for this discussion, and will pursue to AFD for consensus if need be, or if no one convinces me otherwise. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
A question, if I may: In the edit summary you wrote: "never ever revert an admin for declining a speedy", and here you use the term "wheel-warring". Does this mean that you consider the removal of a speedy tag by an admin an administrative action? In other words, is it different from when a normal editor removes the tag? decltype ( talk) 13:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I just linked to your page there in my editnotice (I hope you don't mind) but then I noticed that there's a single individualized link at the bottom that makes it invalid if someone is reading it when I deleted their page - did you make a copy because of it? Do you think I shouldn't just link to a copy? -- Menti fisto 09:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the save on this article. I noticed a quick speedy placed on it, just as I was trying to give some pointers to the author. I'm glad we were able to preserve the information. ;o) -- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 14:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you please delete and block this: John Carney (radio)? It has been deleted before, it is a tiny non-notable show & there is obvious COI. R3ap3R.inc ( talk) 15:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello SoWhy! I hope you are sleeping better, because I have a problem for you to help me solve, ;-) I randomly came across the article Kevin Adams, and noting that the birth date and place of birth had been removed, I re-added it on 24 March. Since then, the same info has been deleted and re-instated 3 times. Although the account that deletes the information changes, it is each time a single purpose account which only edits that Kevin Adams article once. It looks like this has been going on for a while; if you look through the history at the red linked names since 30 September, the majority make a single edit to the article to remove some information, usually the birth information. So, what do I need to do? I suspect that someone is abusing multiple accounts . . . where would I take this suspicion? Is that the major issue here, or should I focus on the perceived vandalism? Should I try to make contact and work out why they are removing the information? The information appears to be correct, so I sort of doubt that they are on a mission of accuracy. What's the best option, do you think? Maedin\ talk 14:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the talk page link. ;-) — Anonymous Dissident Talk 20:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I was surprised by your examples of bad rollbacks. The two you provided as examples were of people making random figure changes, which is classed as vandalism by most. On vandalism, sometimes I rollback and message, others I just roll back and ignore. If I'm reverting stale vandalism that appears to be an isolated incidedent, I don't usually drop a warning message.
I do use it for WP:BADCHART issues, but if I use it there, I consistently go to the talk page of the editor that made the offending edit and leave a message. The normal sequence of messages I use can be seen at User_talk:201.209.224.71.— Kww( talk) 11:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey SoWhy. On Alice Glass a sock puppet is continually adding unsourced information to the article. It's probably better to block the IP's as they appear, over semi protection. What do you think? — R 2 15:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 19:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a dynamic IP (same for one day), I don't think admins would give a range block for an issue like that. Temporary semi-protection would force him to create an account, which would be better also because of privacy issues. Squash Racket ( talk) 07:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
There are some IP edits from 68.6.149.9 while addition of unnecessary "spoilers" in future episodes. This is a fashion-themed reality competition with airs only two months. Can you protect it for 42 days? ApprenticeFan talk contribs 07:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that NRISoft is not like any other bodyshop/consulting company. Its into activism, against h1b visa holder abuse by their Indian owned bodyshops located in the Unites States. Some of the abuses include confiscating employee passports, keeping 8 h1bs in a 1 bedroom apartment, bringing them from India by charging them money(in essence smuggling), LCA violations, disobeying US labor laws including not paying money on the bench, h1b transfers without project, an USCIS RFE violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShravanDebbad ( talk • contribs) 12:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that it is content dispute. Please see these threats for a better perspective of what kind of editor(s) I was up against. -- Docku: What's up? 14:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, your [11] has been open past the 30 day time limit, and it needs to be archived to eliminated the backlog, if you wish to keep it open any longer, don't hesitate to ask. If not, I will need to archive it.-- Tru co 02:44, 8 April 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
why did you delate PBW page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach wikipoff ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 04:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Can you protect the article San Jose del Monte City? Because there are many vandalism in that page. Only semi-protected. My english is not good. Thanks! -- Secaundis • ( myTalk) • ( myContribs) 07:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Mind salting this for a bit? 2 creations today, 1 creation two days ago; the people involved don't seem to be getting the message, so maybe preventing its recreation for a bit might slow them down. Ironholds ( talk) 09:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I disagree with your decision to decline this speedy. I think it was you who gave me a tip that I should use A7 if there was any non-promotional material to be salvaged. I found none, but of course, what's "promotional" and what's "factual" is often a matter of opinion. Anyway, I hope you don't see my latest edits as a case of WP:POINT, because they weren't at all intended as such. decltype ( talk) 13:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. In regard to the speedy deletion of SureThing page, I never meant that it was qualified for software rule. The rule that I mentioned and referred to, was A7 web content and not software. This rule says, if a page is about a person, an organization, and/or a web page. and then it says it does not apply to softwares. Thanks. Parvazbato59 ( talk) 16:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
This does not look right. There is something wrong with it. I don't know what I have done wrong. Thanks Parvazbato59 ( talk) 17:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
importScript('User:Jnothman/afd_helper/script.js');
Hi, per the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial disappearance decision to relist, perhaps you can reconsider since the nub of the matter was the non-existence of the term in the literature, not the actual content that followed thereon. No need to reply - whatever you think is best is fine. Eusebeus ( talk) 16:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you (rightfully) removed the speedy delete tag to Triplets Paradox, so in order to get rid of this nonsense, I have taken another approach with this and this. I think this is better indeed. Thanks and cheers, DVdm ( talk) 17:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your swift decision on Marketcetera, of which I am the original author. I was going to stamp the talk page as settled and quote the time and admin (yourself) that settled it. Is this good practice? Also, incidentally, is there a general policy for quoting another user or referencing his/her actions in this kind of way? Thanks. Wikiphile1603 ( talk) 22:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Would you agree with me that this is substantially the same as Sudesh sivarasu, recently deleted at AFD? The scholar hits were specifically discussed there... If so, I think some deleting and salting may be in order. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi soWhy
Thank you for your response to my remarks regarding this subject and I have noted the procedural guidelines you brought to my attention. I will follow these in future. (I hope I'm making the comment in the right place and correctly signed this time).
I will pursue the lines you suggest regarding the Haramein article.
Thanks again for the reply.
Indigopete ( talk) 11:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
He thanks for reverting the edit of De Lorenzo's Tomato Pies by Exeunt. I always assume good faith but I have reason to believe he has some kind of personal bias against these articles. I'm not sure if it was bad faith but if you look at other articles he edited after he stalked me such as 53rd and 6th, Joe's Shanghai (rated as best dumpling in New York City I know this one is not as notable as the others), and Serendipity III you can see that he blatantly removed massive amounts of cited material I added when trying to push these articles up to WP Standards. The most shocking is this reversion here. He actually reverted my edit which had a large amount of citations to a vandalized version. He might be trying to remove information in order to add speedy tags. It's all to early to tell just giving you a heads up. Valoem talk 14:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear,Please don't indulge in a mission to malign Sai Baba. May I ask you of which branch of Christianity you belong to. Court has not proved any thing against him. Who are you to malign him? You guys are bent on destroying other cultures. You did the same to Muslims time and again. I hope,God punishes you for your wrong-doings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitzorba ( talk • contribs) 06:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
You said to "just come back here and ask", so here's another conundrum: These three articles are all written to promote businesses of "Holiday Extras Holdings", and they all have similar problems:
The author of the Better choice parking article ( Jonclarke84 ( talk · contribs)) has deleted the {{ Primarysources}}, {{ advert}} and {{ prod}} three times today, having only very slightly improved the article. I don't want fall foul of WP:3RR by restoring the tags, so I've put warnings on the talk pages instead. Am I going about this the right way? What should I do next, and when? - Pointillist ( talk) 16:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw you declined the Speedy Deletion Tags on the article about Mohit Shah [ [1]] and referred to Google News [ [2]]. Are you referring to this News Article [3]? This News article refers to one Mohit Shah who was the former Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court in India. The article under consideration is about Mohit Shah who is a sophomore at GWU per External Link #4 [4] in the article [ [5]]. I was wondering whether I'm correct in my assumption here [ [6]]. Thanks a lot in advance. -- Louisprandtl ( talk) 08:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello again! I have another question:) What is the tag for "no reference", for adding it to articles that have no reference? I know the once for improving reference but not this one. Is there a code that I can add to my monobook to make the use of these warning and reference tags easier? Best Regards Parvazbato59 ( talk) 17:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. It doesn't look like blatant vandalism to me, but rather a content dispute. I'll be away for a bit, so feel free to deny/accept the request. – Juliancolton Talk · Review 22:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, the reason I used DB-Move was... for a page move. Rwiggum ( Talk/ Contrib) 03:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
db-move|WHAT TO MOVE HERE}}
, otherwise the deleting admin cannot evaluate if the request makes sense as cleanup or not. And honestly, I do not see a reason to do so because the EPs are not entitled "The Bug Sessions" but "Bug Sessions" and as such that would be the correct name for the article. If you dispute this, which is your right, I'd say you need to discuss it first because I do not think it's uncontroversial to rename this article. After all, at least
IllaZilla (
talk ·
contribs) is probably disputing the correctness of this request as they have moved it to the current location in the first place not 15 days ago. Regards
So
Why
10:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)v1.0a7 is out. I added in the Close link on the daily pages for FfD and TfD along with a Close link on the top link of an individual AfD page. I'm still thinking about your other suggestion and the other missing features that I need to add. Can you see if I broke anything? I don't think I did, but you never know. =) -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 20:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw that you declined my protection request for my userpage because "Pages are not protected pre-emptively", and i understand that. But can you please tell me why my request was declined when i've seen multiple userpages that have been indefinitely semi-protected just because the user requested it, and that have never been vandalized or edited by another user? -- Frehley Space Ace 07:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
IP user is putting that blog source back into the article, I don't want to get caught up with WP:3RR. Not sure what should be done, I'll try requesting page protection. Momusufan ( talk) 17:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
IP made a legal threat over my placing of a whois template on his page, see here. Momusufan ( talk) 17:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I decided to expedite the process and reported the IP to AIV, based on 3RR violations and the legal threat. Momusufan ( talk) 17:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know...using Huggle, I reverted one edit on the Menudo article that used a personal blog as a source, and the anonymous user ( 66.229.250.178) whose edit I reverted is now pretending to be you and gave me a poorly-forged 3RR warning on my talk page ( here) - SoSaysChappy ( talk) 17:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete the John Huong article? I had a look through the various reasons you wrote out, and I still don't know. Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 17:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Jayron32 blocked him for the legal threat, Glad thats over. Momusufan ( talk) 18:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
It appears the IP withdrew the legal threat, under conditions from the admin:
"Legal threat withdrawn. However, if you make disruptive edits, edit war or remove the IP template from this page again you will be swiftly reblocked. If you don't want other editors to see your IP, log on with a user account."
I hope he learns his lesson but I doubt it. Momusufan ( talk) 18:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for protecting this page. Could you maybe extend it by about 3 or 4 hours though? The current protection will expire at 8PM ET, which is 1 hour into the event. The PPV articles usually get heavy vandalism during the event, the event will end about 11PM ET (which I think is 03:00 UTC). TJ Spyke 18:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
A handful of edits in the past two days from vandalism-only accounts that were immediately blocked does not seem to be enough justification for a month semi-protection. Are you sure it's necessary? It seems like enough people are watching the article that any vandalism gets reverted fairly quickly. Glass Cobra 22:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, it meets the criteria for speedy deletion because the article consists of just two external links. Secondly, the previous AfD was closed by User:Tavix so the template would have been removed anyway. I was the original nominator of that AfD. JamesBurns ( talk)
Hello again. G11? I must admit that I didn't see that one coming :) Would you mind giving an explanation?
Thanks for your time. decltype ( talk) 09:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy, I've just deleted Template:User CVU4-en at the author's request, but I'm still seeing a shedload of userbox pages with user requests to delete, have I mucked something up or is it just the servers taking time to catch up - do you see 76 pages with author request to delete? I thought all the transcluded userboxes would just go red. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. My mistake, as I have lost experience with the WikiScript formatting. Thanks! Marlith (Talk) 15:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 20:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I am just wondering why my user page was on CAT:CSD in the first place. Was it a glitch that just "happened"? Any response would be great, Thanks. Shanman7 ( talk) 21:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you please complete the afd nomination for Henry Hübchen? Not a notable actor by any standard. 212.95.57.23 ( talk) 02:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for your comments in reference to my page, truth be told; I thoroughly read through the comments made on my page.
It has been a compilation of my secretary and a person who works on my PR management.
To address a few of the concerns brought up in both the discussions and speedy deletion messages, I'd like to preface by saying first that there may have been citation errors, when brought to my attention to review the Wikipedia my knowledge of how to code it was unknown. Not only did the posting process not make sense to me, I was getting confused on the citation process and the buttons above this window I'm typing in, didn't really make much sense.
So therefore I handed it over to staffers.
http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/2007/10/04/News/Gw.Students.Start.Indias.First.Hybrid.Power.Plant-3011644.shtml http://www.linkedin.com/in/mohitrshah http://www.zibb.com/article/4690884/Gujarat+set+to+get+investments+in+solar+power+sector http://www.collegemagazine.com/content/sophomore_entrepreneurs_high_solar_power http://www.vibrantgujarat.com/mous_2009/pdf/sector-mous/power-renewable.pdf
http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/record/2005/2005_E01189.pdf
Those are links to articles that show 1) Who I am. 2) What I'm doing. 3) Gives me the credibility.
The reason I suppose my story is interesting, is because I'm constantly fighting an uphill battle, I'm 21 years old, I do philanthropic work, I served the community countlessly, I've left college to pursue a environmentally friendly project. Why I'm different is because I'm 21 years old, because I signed an agreement with the Government of Gujarat for a project worth 1 billion dollars. Why I believe it's different is because I've spent my entire youth career as an advocate for education, leadership, and now I'm changing the world at a time when not many people wanted to. 1 year + ago no one cared for alternative energy, and now the boom! I'd associate myself as a part of that reason.
To be honest; I thought it would be motivational for other people who don't know my story and don't have the ability to speak with me in person to learn it. Regardless of whether you decide to stand by your decision or, reinstate my Wikipedia page, I respect your decision. I just know whether it be tomorrow or a year from now, I will make my story heard.
I thank you for your time and patience and consideration, hopefully it all works out, if not -- next time. If you choose to keep the page, maybe you could help me with the formatting of it, and I'll do it myself with assistance to meet your criteria, I feel it's all there, just up to you guys.
Thanks you. OH and sorry for the terrible formatting.
Mshah14 (
talk)
04:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)mshah14
Thank you for pointing that, its my mistake, but as you can see, some others did the same, even cluebot did :-), anyways, sorry and I ll be more careful, and thank you for your time Maen. K. A. ( talk) 07:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
You have mail. ∗
\ / (
⁂)
08:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to try and make the filter you requested. Can you give an example of an edit that got it wrong that I can use in testing? - Mgm| (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy, Thanks for picking that up for me. In the future, should I tag musicals as {{ prod}}? I've seen a couple tonight, and wasn't sure what to do with them. Also, I see you have a mighty awesome template above this 'New Section' page, can I ask how you accomplished something so great? Or is it a trade secret ;-)? Cheers — Deon555 talkI'm BACK! 11:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You declined my speedy request for Inter-organizational systems on the grounds that it does have context. Can you find anything in the article that explains what inter-organizational systems are? It's all a specific story about Walmart, and provides no context for the purported topic of the article. It's as though someone created an article titled "Literature" and then wrote an article that didn't contain the word "literature" once and was instead all about some business issue facing one of the major booksellers. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 12:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I should have looked further down the list! I missed the user pages templates. Thank you for taking care of the deletion, anyway, :-) Hope all is well with you! Maedin\ talk 12:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey.. noticed that Interroll article that you (I'd like to say we, but you did the work :P) nuked is back again. Can you confirm if it's the same editor? I thought I warned him, but the talk page is a redlink, so either I forgot, or there are multiple accounts. Cheers — Deon555 talkI'm BACK! 12:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for protecting Middle Power. Please can you also consider protecting Great Power, where removal of sourced material without explanation by the same IP hopper is continuing? Thanks. Viewfinder ( talk) 15:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
With this edit you declined my speedy deletion request, saying this band had "multiple claims of notability". The same named article has already been speedily deleted twice before, in March 2008 and in February 2009. And did you actually check out their references upon which editors are expected to verify their multiple claims of notability? One link to their own myspace page [8]; one link to a page that only offers a redirect to their own myspace page [9]; and one link where they are briefly mentioned in the last comment on a blog about some kind of flashmob event [10] - hardly solid claims to notability. Yet, they provide no evidence of any association with Abercrombie and Fitch, no evidence of having packed out a 15,000 seat venue in Texas, and no evidence of having spoken to the BBC - all events that could make them notable. Please can I urge you to reconsider your decision to decline my speedy deletion request. Thanks. Astronaut ( talk) 13:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you may have speedied the article under some other forms. I encountered it under yet another, but changed the name to this & did not delete it, as it didn't seem too promotional for an article to be made of it, if he;s notable, though it obviously needs much work. Just letting you know DGG ( talk) 14:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
SoWhy - thanks for reviewing my CSD on The Prankster's Dilemma, however I am still confused by the result. This page was created on April Fools day with multiple sources listed but no inline citations. It also quotes "experts agree" but doesn't identify the sources. It also quotes the Paradox of the Gullible which has never existed. Seems to me to be an April Fools joke... but if you still disagree I'll review it from another perspective. JCutter ( talk) 03:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting it in The Right Version TM :). Could you tweak the protection to 11 April - that's when the episode airs, and an image that doesn't fail NFCC will be available?
Black Kite 18:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Actually forget that, see below
Black Kite
18:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for protecting the article (though you did the wrong version :p !!) Could you, however, time-limit it to some time before the 11 April, since the current indef-level is going to cause problems as more material about the upcoming episode emerges over the coming days? It would be absolutely crippling to not be able to edit the article at all until after it's aired! Thanks! ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 18:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know why you have deleted my article - this ia a New system for economic development to help the people of the world - i have contacted the Wikipedia Information Team to shine more light on this dispute - their are many other articles on wikipedia that in my opinion are adverstiment and are not encyclopedia worthy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Idol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Wants_to_Be_a_Millionaire%3F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySpace
their is also a press release on the subject http://www.prlog.org/10207508-the-bank-for-international-ideas-will-facilitate-economic-development-created-by-leonard-johnson.html
-- Bankleonard ( talk) 03:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:ATHLETE states that an individual player is only notable if tehy have played in a fully professional game. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/Notability_guidelines. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I have changed my tactic to PROD to eliminate the need for this discussion, and will pursue to AFD for consensus if need be, or if no one convinces me otherwise. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
A question, if I may: In the edit summary you wrote: "never ever revert an admin for declining a speedy", and here you use the term "wheel-warring". Does this mean that you consider the removal of a speedy tag by an admin an administrative action? In other words, is it different from when a normal editor removes the tag? decltype ( talk) 13:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I just linked to your page there in my editnotice (I hope you don't mind) but then I noticed that there's a single individualized link at the bottom that makes it invalid if someone is reading it when I deleted their page - did you make a copy because of it? Do you think I shouldn't just link to a copy? -- Menti fisto 09:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the save on this article. I noticed a quick speedy placed on it, just as I was trying to give some pointers to the author. I'm glad we were able to preserve the information. ;o) -- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 14:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you please delete and block this: John Carney (radio)? It has been deleted before, it is a tiny non-notable show & there is obvious COI. R3ap3R.inc ( talk) 15:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello SoWhy! I hope you are sleeping better, because I have a problem for you to help me solve, ;-) I randomly came across the article Kevin Adams, and noting that the birth date and place of birth had been removed, I re-added it on 24 March. Since then, the same info has been deleted and re-instated 3 times. Although the account that deletes the information changes, it is each time a single purpose account which only edits that Kevin Adams article once. It looks like this has been going on for a while; if you look through the history at the red linked names since 30 September, the majority make a single edit to the article to remove some information, usually the birth information. So, what do I need to do? I suspect that someone is abusing multiple accounts . . . where would I take this suspicion? Is that the major issue here, or should I focus on the perceived vandalism? Should I try to make contact and work out why they are removing the information? The information appears to be correct, so I sort of doubt that they are on a mission of accuracy. What's the best option, do you think? Maedin\ talk 14:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the talk page link. ;-) — Anonymous Dissident Talk 20:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I was surprised by your examples of bad rollbacks. The two you provided as examples were of people making random figure changes, which is classed as vandalism by most. On vandalism, sometimes I rollback and message, others I just roll back and ignore. If I'm reverting stale vandalism that appears to be an isolated incidedent, I don't usually drop a warning message.
I do use it for WP:BADCHART issues, but if I use it there, I consistently go to the talk page of the editor that made the offending edit and leave a message. The normal sequence of messages I use can be seen at User_talk:201.209.224.71.— Kww( talk) 11:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey SoWhy. On Alice Glass a sock puppet is continually adding unsourced information to the article. It's probably better to block the IP's as they appear, over semi protection. What do you think? — R 2 15:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 19:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a dynamic IP (same for one day), I don't think admins would give a range block for an issue like that. Temporary semi-protection would force him to create an account, which would be better also because of privacy issues. Squash Racket ( talk) 07:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
There are some IP edits from 68.6.149.9 while addition of unnecessary "spoilers" in future episodes. This is a fashion-themed reality competition with airs only two months. Can you protect it for 42 days? ApprenticeFan talk contribs 07:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that NRISoft is not like any other bodyshop/consulting company. Its into activism, against h1b visa holder abuse by their Indian owned bodyshops located in the Unites States. Some of the abuses include confiscating employee passports, keeping 8 h1bs in a 1 bedroom apartment, bringing them from India by charging them money(in essence smuggling), LCA violations, disobeying US labor laws including not paying money on the bench, h1b transfers without project, an USCIS RFE violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShravanDebbad ( talk • contribs) 12:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that it is content dispute. Please see these threats for a better perspective of what kind of editor(s) I was up against. -- Docku: What's up? 14:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, your [11] has been open past the 30 day time limit, and it needs to be archived to eliminated the backlog, if you wish to keep it open any longer, don't hesitate to ask. If not, I will need to archive it.-- Tru co 02:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)