![]() | 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 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Hey, thanks for the vandalism revert on my talk page. ;-) — Ched : ? 22:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy. I came across this article: SCH (band) and these articles. I think there may be something wrong with these articles but I'm not entirely sure. Article prod/csd is not my field of expertise and well, to avoid any possible mistakes, I'd like to ask an expert to have a look at the articles and hopefully remedy the situation. Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 22:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the de-capitalization of the SCH band and album pages. I have a question about your edits of these, which severely damage the encyclopedic value of my articles. The "pruned" pages now lack the appropriate historical context, and in some cases, my own translations into English of Bosnian language texts are essential to future scholarship into this subject by non-Bosnian speakers and are the only English language entry points into this world; deletion of these translations is particularly damaging to the articles.
It appears here a clarification of your interpretation of copyright law in this context is needed, since the citations which you have removed, according to my interpretation, fall under U.S. Fair Use criteria and pass the four-pronged test for fair use - are you evaluating the citations through the lens of some other copyright regime? What are your concerns here, because the quotations in the articles clearly pass all four prongs of U.S. Fair Use standard (see ALL CAPS behind each four standard below). As you know, these matters are ones of interpretation, and so a discussion about these is warranted: [1]
"Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
Please, undo.
Cheers, vielen Dank,
srx 16:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC) StrindbergRex —Preceding unsigned comment added by StrindbergRex ( talk • contribs)
As someone who commented either for or against proposals here, I would like to invite you to comment further on the desysop process proposal and suggest amendments before I move the proposal into projectspace for wider scrutiny and a discussion on adoption. The other ideas proposed on the page were rejected, and if you are uninterested in commenting on the desysop proposal I understand of course. Thanks! → ROUX ₪ 04:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
as to which db to use but usually, I am right on as to the fact that it should be db'd. I leave it to the person who is deleting it fine tune it, if need be! Postcard Cathy ( talk) 13:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I recently created a page for a 1st team footballer at Blackburn Rovers named Julio Santa Cruz. He has been given a first team number by the Rovers management and has been on the Rovers bench on a couple of occasions making appearences in cup competitions also. I would like to know why this page was deleted with no warning or discussion. I spend allot of time making alterations to pages, and creating relevent pages. But if this is how my time is going to wasted, i might not bother. I find removing this page without any warning highly disrespectful to the people that create and maintain it and highly unprofessional.
Please reinstate this page at 'your earlier convenience'... RoverTheBendInSussex ( talk) 10:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear SoWhy,
I note that you recently deleted my article on Wokai. I see that the article had been previously flagged for "speedy deletion" after being marked for "delete" in a "Articles for deletion". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wokai . I would kindly request that you reconsider, and perhaps help me ensure that this article stays up. Since the time of the September '08 discussion, Wokai has garnered significant coverage from reputable media sources (CNBC, AsianWeek, SF Chronicle, per below) and has raised significant funds, built a 100+ member volunteer base and is well on its way to its mission of raising funds from international sources for microentrepreneurs in rural China. It's a noteworthy 501(c)3 nonprofit deserving of its own mention.
Links:
Wokai's Co-Founder & Ceo spoke at Google's Tech Talks - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqhZoCp0UCg CNBC's Nick Mackey did a recent piece featuring Wokai's China operations - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wokai AsianWeek covered Wokai's SF launch - http://www.asianweek.com/2009/07/13/bay-area-microfinance-reaches-rural-chinese/ San Francisco Chronicle Coverage - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/13/BACB16VUFE.DTL
Cheers, and thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euwyn ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
You closed this debate less than a day after it was re-listed. There is a search ongoing for offline sources. Could you please un-close this while we wait to see if sources can be found? Thank you. - RunningOnBrains( talk page) 17:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete my initial article? I didn't brake any copyright rules. I was editing when of the sudden, all everything disappeared.-- WlaKom ( talk) 10:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy
I was asked to re-write the article about MacFamilyTree by my boss. I've never even seen the one you blocked but I created a new one that's very close to the article about Reunion language-wise (a product in the same market). MacFamilyTree is a proprietary product so I'd really appreciate any advise on how to improve it. If you think it's as good a start as it gets, please move the article for me so others can contribute. I wrote the article on my user site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GeroSynium
Thanks for your time GeroSynium ( talk) 12:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I will GeroSynium ( talk) 15:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
If you are a fan of cricket then you know how difficult it is to sum up even important facts and records (leave aside all records) related to Test Cricket in a single page. A single page can't do justice to team records as well as individual records, batting records as well as bowling records and fielding records, captaincy records, wicket-keeping records etc and the list goes on. So I just want to dedicate one single page to bowling records, one single page to batting records and so on... U can see for yourself that the bowling record section on the current record page doesn't even mention these important facts.
While similar/analogous data for batting has been mentioned. I have all these facts related to Test bowling ready with me. so please let me proceed. Reply Soon.
Regards. Snigdh.
Snigdh.Chandra (
talk)
13:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't have the source, but if you read the page, you'll see that the creator has included notonly copyvio material, but the headline and byline in his article itself. Frmatt ( talk) 13:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Considering the massive amount of news coverage this is still getting, what do I have to do to request an extension of the semi-protection? Are you aware that the anon(s) involved also continued their campaign on Commons after the SP? I have a very bad feeling that when this SP expires on the 24th, we are going to be be reverting vandalism non-stop. Any ideas? Viriditas ( talk) 10:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy, I've added some words to the article and left a note on the DYK talkpage. Thanks for your help, and enjoy the game! Drmies ( talk) 22:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear SoWhy, here you pointed that the hook has 193 characters. How can I determine how many characters a hook has? Best wishes, AdjustShift ( talk) 02:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 12:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I just stumbled across your communication with Shadowjams, and wanted to quickly congratulate you for your respectful and successful communication. — Sebastian 02:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Would you please indefinitely semi-protect my userspace. Synchronism ( talk) 10:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
There are several examples, so I'd just quote a recent one. This one is a bit more clear cut than some others. A set of edits were made by an editor, where by itself, are innocent-looking and legitimate on different articles. However, when the user contrib's is shown as a whole, it lines up to form a libelous hidden message against named individuals. - Mailer Diablo 12:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 13:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
An editor is requesting at WP:EAR that a new version of this article, which is available at User:Euwyn, be allowed in the mainspace. Since you recently create-protected this page due to the article being recreated, can you take a look to see whether Euwyn's article is substantially similiar to the previous article? Thanks, Them From Space 04:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
...but was
this lifted from
User talk:Dank? If so, you ought have attributed it somehow when templatefying it. FYI I've also lifted it from Dank (but properly attributed it) and put it at
WP:TPS/banner. You can use {{
WP:TPS/banner|75}} to replicate your usage, which you ought delete. (apologies if I have the order-of-operations reversed) cheers, –
xeno
talk
20:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Please ping the AC clerks instead of indenting the votes yourself since you are a candidate.-- Tznkai ( talk) 00:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I am working with two others to develop Outline of rock music. We agree that the article should be sandboxed first before continuing. I created the page Talk:Outline of rock music/Sandbox and emailed the original editor asking him to CSD the main page, just checking but if that is done the sandbox page created will still exist, right? The sandbox was moved to Outline of rock music/Sandbox so it can have its own talk page. Sswonk ( talk) 13:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
(feel free to remove this once you've read it)
You asked for opposers to give reasons, but the format of the election page doesn't allow them; I don't think you're untrustworthy at all, but I am concerned that you're very trigger-happy regarding RFPP. Protection should be a last resort as almost every use of it further widens the already gaping divide between content-writers and admins – despite you're being an admin for less than half the time I was, you have enacted six times as many protections in that time as I did in my entire time here – and looking at your
protection log there are numerous clearly inappropriate protections in your recent history. (Protection of
Friedrich Martens in response to
this edit, six months protection of
Jonas Brothers in response to a single vandal, indefinite full protection of
Melanie Cruise…) In light of that, I'm concerned that you'd be oversighting a lot of material that doesn't really warrant it (oversighting is a last-resort measure because, inter alia, it destroys audit trails and hides patterns of bad behaviour) as you seem to have far too strict a definition of "bad content". –
iride
scent
17:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I have read your article on deletion and still do feel that the page for the band Shirukume should have been deleted. It contained no vandalism, advertising, copyright violations, was encyclopedic content, and sources were cited. If quantity of sources was the issue, i or someone else can easily get a few more.
To fill you in: Shirukume are a very popular band in my area of the UK. Form a huge part of the youth culture in the Worcestershire and Birmingham areas. They are signed to Mother Should Know Records. Yes, I am a fan. Of course I am or I wouldnt bother making the page, but I ensured I kept in encyclopedic, and did alot of research to find out all the band's activity over the years, and grabbed the band after a show and asked them a few things. The rest was found on my cited sources.
The reason I made the page was simply as a concise source of information about the band, which is the point of wikipedia is it not? When I, or i'm sure anybody finds or hears about a new band, one visits 3 places. Band website, band myspace, and wikipedia. So its worth having that page to provide info, if so many people are going to view it - surely :)
Mmm that was more long winded than it needed to be - sorry about that. Anyway I hope you'll review the page. I'm pretty slow at all the markup language, im new to all this, so i'd rather make appropriate changes to the page than start again - it took me ages!
Thanks very much =]
Tom
Tomandhismathcore ( talk) 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear SoWhy,
I am sorry to oppose your candidacy, but here is my reason for doing so. My biggest concern is your CSD track record. You often create inordinate amounts of work to delete pages that need to go, resulting in process drag and allowing people to game the system. While it is good that you adhere to the policies strictly, there are a few incidents that really caught my attention, among which some are noted on your editor/admin reviews. Oversight is deletion after all. Sorry again, Triplestop x3 22:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
No worries. Please start assembling another set, since I've moved the set to the queue area. You might also want to use the inuse tag while you are at it. -- BorgQueen ( talk) 10:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Orlady ( talk) 13:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the first RFC, I am informing you there is a second RFC on Aitias currently open. Majorly talk 16:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I created a page that was called The American Outlaws. It was deleted, because it was considered a club. I am supposed to give reasons for why it should stay. While thinking about creating it I looked around and saw that Sam's Army had a page as well as a many Major League Soccer Supporters Groups. The American Outlaws are as big (if not bigger) than most of these groups. It is a well established group that is nationwide, it is growing, and I recently heard that it is incorporated. It is a legit group, and not a club that some people decided to throw together. If needed I could rewrite the page.
UsmntAO (
talk)
01:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC) UsmntAO
ok thanks!
UsmntAO (
talk)
20:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)UsmntAO
I am a newbie on Wikipedia and have been writing a company page for Integration Point for the better half of this year. A couple months back you disagreed with a speedy deletion tag placed on my article and cited that you believed the article had "plenty of notablility" , but may still need to be revised as an advertisement. Because of you, I was able to work on the article - adding more credible sources and revising so that advertising was no longer an issue. Recently another admin, Nihonjoe, has placed multiple tags, including a speedy deletion tag, on the article. I included more sources at his request, but he then added the consider for deletion tag. I made some mistakes, I admit, but I am new to this and I feel that I can no longer work with an aggressive admin because his criticisms do not prove to be helpful. The point of the Integration Point page is not to advertise, but to allow someone who is curious about the company to read information about it on Wikipedia. I simply would like to create an informative company page, but I am having difficulty with tags constantly being placed. I am open to suggestions and willing to edit, but as far as the notability of the article, which Nihonjoe constantly disputes, I am not sure what more I can do. I know that my references are credible. I thought I was heading in the right direction and now feel discouraged. Can you please help? Jmiles1107 ( talk) 15:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
In most cases, the A9 speedy delete requests were accompanied by or prompted by A7-band requests on the associated artist. Irbisgreif ( talk) 19:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Sincere thanks for the help about border. Hamza [ talk ] 19:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I did do a Google search and found nothing -- although there are a number of firms with that name in the United States, I found nothing that would lead me to believe that there was any notability at all. However, it's entirely possible you know something I don't. I'm just wondering if this prevents the article being speedied as a copyright violation, which I also believe is the case, or whether this now has to go to AfD. Accounting4Taste: talk 20:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note about noinclude and {{ db-redirnone}}. Can you explain why the following templates which were nominated ten days ago do not populate Category:Templates for speedy deletion?
I am almost done with the WP:METALWORKING navbox migration, and want to get it wrapped up tidily. Bryancpark ( talk) 20:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I notice that you just added a set of DYK hooks from the prep area to the queues. THANK YOU FOR THAT! I notice that they image used is found on Commons and it was not protected. Please be sure to either protect the image of Commons if you're an admin there or upload the image to the English Wikipedia (which only an admin can do) and it will automatically get protected here. You just need to add the template {{ C-uploaded}} to the image after uploading to the English Wikipedia. We can't have unprotected images on the main page - one of these days there's be a picture from this category on Commons for the world to see. You don't need to worry about this image, I protected it on Commons. This message is just a reminder, no need to respond. If you feel the need to respond, please do it on your talk page. Thanks for your help! Royal broil 22:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Per this discussion: [5] I would also like a way to track deprods. I've been asking Kingpin13 about if it is possible, and they directed me to that thread. Fences& Windows 00:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
In reply to your question on my talk page, the reasons I don't really want to place SDPatrol on the tool server, are because it's too complex a process, the way it's written currently (it requires me to press buttons, it has a large amount of interface, and often requires a start-stop, etc.), and I don't want to do a full re-write to change this, also their rules (which require me to subscribe to lists, and have yet another e-mail ;D), and I don't feel a huge need to :) - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 21:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've moved the contents of
Shell Exploration and Production Ireland to
Royal Dutch Shell as I didn't believe this article was necessary and the topic could be covered adequately in the larger article. I'm not sure if the request for deletion was declined becuase I didn't follow the correct protocol? Please advise. Thanks
GainLine
♠
♥
11:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
db-move|PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE}}
and only then if you plan to move a page to the location you tagged. General cleanup can be requested using {{
db-g6|reason=REASON}}
but as I said in this case, it was not deletable anyway. Regards
So
Why
13:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Cheers, thanks for that. I know now!
GainLine
♠
♥
16:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
SoWhy, I put my vote in at the bottom as nomination withdrawn. I do not know how to close the AFD, as I think removing the article constitutes vandalism. Could you please close the AFD as "nominator withdrawn". Thank you. keystoneridin! ( talk) 17:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, if you have the time could you take a look at my report at WP:3RRN? Knowing it, it probably won't be looked at until tomorrow otherwise. Thanks, -- aktsu ( t / c) 19:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, you recently declined a speedy deletion tag ( WP:A7) that I placed on the Subspace trip mine article. I left a message on the talk page explaining why it qualified for A7. As an item uploaded to an online game is it not considered web content? Can you please give me some more detail? Anything helps. Thanks in advance!-- Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 06:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey SoWhy, I'm wondering if you can help me understand what I need to do to finish SUL/usurpation. The nowiki user was moved so I could have that account, but I'm unsure of how to log into it, or what I need to do. (create a new account?)
Second, there's a contrib or two at dewiki, so that seems stuck. Here's my request over there: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilfe_Diskussion:Benutzernamen_%C3%A4ndern/Problemf%C3%A4lle#Future_plans
I understand dewiki is .. a sticking point in the whole SUL process. That's disappointing, because now that should be the only blocker in my new SUL superpowers.
I'm not asking you to fix it- I'm just wondering if you can give me pointers on those two topics- what I need to do next. tedder ( talk) 05:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
There's also certain Swiss German dialects using this. Tends to drive me crazy :) MLauba ( talk) 15:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 20:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Re speedy: I have a very uncomfortable feeling with this page. Several assertions about run-ins with police, threats being made, yelling, etc. are being made without being sourced. The second paragraph is an alarm bell IMHO ("Much of what follows cannot easily be externally referenced although, as the individual concerned still lives in the area and is active on the internet, anything which is considered factually inaccurate will be challenged quickly. Archive searches of the Governor's minutes will provide verification for much of what is written, and a number of newspapers and the BBC have also researched the issues and are quoted below.") As this is a BLP, such unsourced statements should be deleted. -- Crusio ( talk) 13:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi again. First, I forgot to say thanks above - so, thanks! I was wondering about your thoughts regarding Java Kingpin ( talk · contribs), ExitGhost ( talk · contribs) and LavaLamp2 ( talk · contribs), all of whom are involved with the House of Pain (Apparel)-article which is currently at AFD. ExitGhost and LavaLamp2 were both created within the same hour Java Kingpin made his return after not editing for over a year and they currently have 50% (2/4, LavaLamp2 hasn't voted or even edited for the last four days) of the "votes" at the AFD so I wouldn't mind making sure they're not socks. What would be the way to go about that? A SPI-report just seems very drastic for such as small issue where there's no obvious abuse, just two reasonable keeps for an article about a company which could potentially be pretty notable but which doesn't have the most searchable name when it comes to finding coverage of it. I'm thinking it's most likely they just know each-other and wanted to help out ExitGhost after seeing people was looking to delete "his" article, but I guess that's not totally OK either (WP:MEAT etc. Not saying they were actually recruited)? What would be the best course of action in this case? Asking a CU to take a quick look at it (are they allowed to do that without a proper report?), go to SPI or simply mark them with the "few edits outside this topic"-template? Thanks, -- aktsu ( t / c) 17:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
While passing by Template talk:Did you know, I noticed that you were mistaken at Template talk:Did you know#Michael E. Wysession ( permalink). Though you were correct in not passing Michael E. Wysession, you were wrong in your reasoning. Please read my explanation at the aforementioned link. Cheers, Cunard ( talk) 20:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm unsure whether or not policy allows for articles added at the end of backlog to be passed, but I strongly believe that it should. If a user forgot to nominate their article for DYK until a day or two after the cutoff date of five days, they would be denied a DYK. There is no harm in passing articles that are a day or two overdue. The cutoff date is officially five days, but I believe that it should be until the article no longer belonged under "Older nominations". This will slightly add to the backlog, but it really doesn't take that long to verify that an article passes the DYK guidelines. Cunard ( talk) 21:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is it that you constantly challenge me on every AFD that I decide on. You seem to follow me around looking to challenge everything that I do. I make good faith edits and I do not vandalize any of the AFD boards if that's what you are trying to get me for. I realize that you are an admin, but I do not think that just because you rewrote the entire article as an admin automatically qualifies the article as saved. keystoneridin! ( talk) 00:36, 8 August 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 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Hey, thanks for the vandalism revert on my talk page. ;-) — Ched : ? 22:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy. I came across this article: SCH (band) and these articles. I think there may be something wrong with these articles but I'm not entirely sure. Article prod/csd is not my field of expertise and well, to avoid any possible mistakes, I'd like to ask an expert to have a look at the articles and hopefully remedy the situation. Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 22:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the de-capitalization of the SCH band and album pages. I have a question about your edits of these, which severely damage the encyclopedic value of my articles. The "pruned" pages now lack the appropriate historical context, and in some cases, my own translations into English of Bosnian language texts are essential to future scholarship into this subject by non-Bosnian speakers and are the only English language entry points into this world; deletion of these translations is particularly damaging to the articles.
It appears here a clarification of your interpretation of copyright law in this context is needed, since the citations which you have removed, according to my interpretation, fall under U.S. Fair Use criteria and pass the four-pronged test for fair use - are you evaluating the citations through the lens of some other copyright regime? What are your concerns here, because the quotations in the articles clearly pass all four prongs of U.S. Fair Use standard (see ALL CAPS behind each four standard below). As you know, these matters are ones of interpretation, and so a discussion about these is warranted: [1]
"Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
Please, undo.
Cheers, vielen Dank,
srx 16:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC) StrindbergRex —Preceding unsigned comment added by StrindbergRex ( talk • contribs)
As someone who commented either for or against proposals here, I would like to invite you to comment further on the desysop process proposal and suggest amendments before I move the proposal into projectspace for wider scrutiny and a discussion on adoption. The other ideas proposed on the page were rejected, and if you are uninterested in commenting on the desysop proposal I understand of course. Thanks! → ROUX ₪ 04:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
as to which db to use but usually, I am right on as to the fact that it should be db'd. I leave it to the person who is deleting it fine tune it, if need be! Postcard Cathy ( talk) 13:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I recently created a page for a 1st team footballer at Blackburn Rovers named Julio Santa Cruz. He has been given a first team number by the Rovers management and has been on the Rovers bench on a couple of occasions making appearences in cup competitions also. I would like to know why this page was deleted with no warning or discussion. I spend allot of time making alterations to pages, and creating relevent pages. But if this is how my time is going to wasted, i might not bother. I find removing this page without any warning highly disrespectful to the people that create and maintain it and highly unprofessional.
Please reinstate this page at 'your earlier convenience'... RoverTheBendInSussex ( talk) 10:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear SoWhy,
I note that you recently deleted my article on Wokai. I see that the article had been previously flagged for "speedy deletion" after being marked for "delete" in a "Articles for deletion". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wokai . I would kindly request that you reconsider, and perhaps help me ensure that this article stays up. Since the time of the September '08 discussion, Wokai has garnered significant coverage from reputable media sources (CNBC, AsianWeek, SF Chronicle, per below) and has raised significant funds, built a 100+ member volunteer base and is well on its way to its mission of raising funds from international sources for microentrepreneurs in rural China. It's a noteworthy 501(c)3 nonprofit deserving of its own mention.
Links:
Wokai's Co-Founder & Ceo spoke at Google's Tech Talks - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqhZoCp0UCg CNBC's Nick Mackey did a recent piece featuring Wokai's China operations - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wokai AsianWeek covered Wokai's SF launch - http://www.asianweek.com/2009/07/13/bay-area-microfinance-reaches-rural-chinese/ San Francisco Chronicle Coverage - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/13/BACB16VUFE.DTL
Cheers, and thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euwyn ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
You closed this debate less than a day after it was re-listed. There is a search ongoing for offline sources. Could you please un-close this while we wait to see if sources can be found? Thank you. - RunningOnBrains( talk page) 17:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete my initial article? I didn't brake any copyright rules. I was editing when of the sudden, all everything disappeared.-- WlaKom ( talk) 10:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy
I was asked to re-write the article about MacFamilyTree by my boss. I've never even seen the one you blocked but I created a new one that's very close to the article about Reunion language-wise (a product in the same market). MacFamilyTree is a proprietary product so I'd really appreciate any advise on how to improve it. If you think it's as good a start as it gets, please move the article for me so others can contribute. I wrote the article on my user site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GeroSynium
Thanks for your time GeroSynium ( talk) 12:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I will GeroSynium ( talk) 15:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
If you are a fan of cricket then you know how difficult it is to sum up even important facts and records (leave aside all records) related to Test Cricket in a single page. A single page can't do justice to team records as well as individual records, batting records as well as bowling records and fielding records, captaincy records, wicket-keeping records etc and the list goes on. So I just want to dedicate one single page to bowling records, one single page to batting records and so on... U can see for yourself that the bowling record section on the current record page doesn't even mention these important facts.
While similar/analogous data for batting has been mentioned. I have all these facts related to Test bowling ready with me. so please let me proceed. Reply Soon.
Regards. Snigdh.
Snigdh.Chandra (
talk)
13:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't have the source, but if you read the page, you'll see that the creator has included notonly copyvio material, but the headline and byline in his article itself. Frmatt ( talk) 13:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Considering the massive amount of news coverage this is still getting, what do I have to do to request an extension of the semi-protection? Are you aware that the anon(s) involved also continued their campaign on Commons after the SP? I have a very bad feeling that when this SP expires on the 24th, we are going to be be reverting vandalism non-stop. Any ideas? Viriditas ( talk) 10:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy, I've added some words to the article and left a note on the DYK talkpage. Thanks for your help, and enjoy the game! Drmies ( talk) 22:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear SoWhy, here you pointed that the hook has 193 characters. How can I determine how many characters a hook has? Best wishes, AdjustShift ( talk) 02:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 12:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I just stumbled across your communication with Shadowjams, and wanted to quickly congratulate you for your respectful and successful communication. — Sebastian 02:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Would you please indefinitely semi-protect my userspace. Synchronism ( talk) 10:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
There are several examples, so I'd just quote a recent one. This one is a bit more clear cut than some others. A set of edits were made by an editor, where by itself, are innocent-looking and legitimate on different articles. However, when the user contrib's is shown as a whole, it lines up to form a libelous hidden message against named individuals. - Mailer Diablo 12:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 13:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
An editor is requesting at WP:EAR that a new version of this article, which is available at User:Euwyn, be allowed in the mainspace. Since you recently create-protected this page due to the article being recreated, can you take a look to see whether Euwyn's article is substantially similiar to the previous article? Thanks, Them From Space 04:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
...but was
this lifted from
User talk:Dank? If so, you ought have attributed it somehow when templatefying it. FYI I've also lifted it from Dank (but properly attributed it) and put it at
WP:TPS/banner. You can use {{
WP:TPS/banner|75}} to replicate your usage, which you ought delete. (apologies if I have the order-of-operations reversed) cheers, –
xeno
talk
20:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Please ping the AC clerks instead of indenting the votes yourself since you are a candidate.-- Tznkai ( talk) 00:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I am working with two others to develop Outline of rock music. We agree that the article should be sandboxed first before continuing. I created the page Talk:Outline of rock music/Sandbox and emailed the original editor asking him to CSD the main page, just checking but if that is done the sandbox page created will still exist, right? The sandbox was moved to Outline of rock music/Sandbox so it can have its own talk page. Sswonk ( talk) 13:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
(feel free to remove this once you've read it)
You asked for opposers to give reasons, but the format of the election page doesn't allow them; I don't think you're untrustworthy at all, but I am concerned that you're very trigger-happy regarding RFPP. Protection should be a last resort as almost every use of it further widens the already gaping divide between content-writers and admins – despite you're being an admin for less than half the time I was, you have enacted six times as many protections in that time as I did in my entire time here – and looking at your
protection log there are numerous clearly inappropriate protections in your recent history. (Protection of
Friedrich Martens in response to
this edit, six months protection of
Jonas Brothers in response to a single vandal, indefinite full protection of
Melanie Cruise…) In light of that, I'm concerned that you'd be oversighting a lot of material that doesn't really warrant it (oversighting is a last-resort measure because, inter alia, it destroys audit trails and hides patterns of bad behaviour) as you seem to have far too strict a definition of "bad content". –
iride
scent
17:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I have read your article on deletion and still do feel that the page for the band Shirukume should have been deleted. It contained no vandalism, advertising, copyright violations, was encyclopedic content, and sources were cited. If quantity of sources was the issue, i or someone else can easily get a few more.
To fill you in: Shirukume are a very popular band in my area of the UK. Form a huge part of the youth culture in the Worcestershire and Birmingham areas. They are signed to Mother Should Know Records. Yes, I am a fan. Of course I am or I wouldnt bother making the page, but I ensured I kept in encyclopedic, and did alot of research to find out all the band's activity over the years, and grabbed the band after a show and asked them a few things. The rest was found on my cited sources.
The reason I made the page was simply as a concise source of information about the band, which is the point of wikipedia is it not? When I, or i'm sure anybody finds or hears about a new band, one visits 3 places. Band website, band myspace, and wikipedia. So its worth having that page to provide info, if so many people are going to view it - surely :)
Mmm that was more long winded than it needed to be - sorry about that. Anyway I hope you'll review the page. I'm pretty slow at all the markup language, im new to all this, so i'd rather make appropriate changes to the page than start again - it took me ages!
Thanks very much =]
Tom
Tomandhismathcore ( talk) 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear SoWhy,
I am sorry to oppose your candidacy, but here is my reason for doing so. My biggest concern is your CSD track record. You often create inordinate amounts of work to delete pages that need to go, resulting in process drag and allowing people to game the system. While it is good that you adhere to the policies strictly, there are a few incidents that really caught my attention, among which some are noted on your editor/admin reviews. Oversight is deletion after all. Sorry again, Triplestop x3 22:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
No worries. Please start assembling another set, since I've moved the set to the queue area. You might also want to use the inuse tag while you are at it. -- BorgQueen ( talk) 10:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Orlady ( talk) 13:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the first RFC, I am informing you there is a second RFC on Aitias currently open. Majorly talk 16:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I created a page that was called The American Outlaws. It was deleted, because it was considered a club. I am supposed to give reasons for why it should stay. While thinking about creating it I looked around and saw that Sam's Army had a page as well as a many Major League Soccer Supporters Groups. The American Outlaws are as big (if not bigger) than most of these groups. It is a well established group that is nationwide, it is growing, and I recently heard that it is incorporated. It is a legit group, and not a club that some people decided to throw together. If needed I could rewrite the page.
UsmntAO (
talk)
01:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC) UsmntAO
ok thanks!
UsmntAO (
talk)
20:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)UsmntAO
I am a newbie on Wikipedia and have been writing a company page for Integration Point for the better half of this year. A couple months back you disagreed with a speedy deletion tag placed on my article and cited that you believed the article had "plenty of notablility" , but may still need to be revised as an advertisement. Because of you, I was able to work on the article - adding more credible sources and revising so that advertising was no longer an issue. Recently another admin, Nihonjoe, has placed multiple tags, including a speedy deletion tag, on the article. I included more sources at his request, but he then added the consider for deletion tag. I made some mistakes, I admit, but I am new to this and I feel that I can no longer work with an aggressive admin because his criticisms do not prove to be helpful. The point of the Integration Point page is not to advertise, but to allow someone who is curious about the company to read information about it on Wikipedia. I simply would like to create an informative company page, but I am having difficulty with tags constantly being placed. I am open to suggestions and willing to edit, but as far as the notability of the article, which Nihonjoe constantly disputes, I am not sure what more I can do. I know that my references are credible. I thought I was heading in the right direction and now feel discouraged. Can you please help? Jmiles1107 ( talk) 15:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
In most cases, the A9 speedy delete requests were accompanied by or prompted by A7-band requests on the associated artist. Irbisgreif ( talk) 19:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Sincere thanks for the help about border. Hamza [ talk ] 19:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I did do a Google search and found nothing -- although there are a number of firms with that name in the United States, I found nothing that would lead me to believe that there was any notability at all. However, it's entirely possible you know something I don't. I'm just wondering if this prevents the article being speedied as a copyright violation, which I also believe is the case, or whether this now has to go to AfD. Accounting4Taste: talk 20:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note about noinclude and {{ db-redirnone}}. Can you explain why the following templates which were nominated ten days ago do not populate Category:Templates for speedy deletion?
I am almost done with the WP:METALWORKING navbox migration, and want to get it wrapped up tidily. Bryancpark ( talk) 20:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I notice that you just added a set of DYK hooks from the prep area to the queues. THANK YOU FOR THAT! I notice that they image used is found on Commons and it was not protected. Please be sure to either protect the image of Commons if you're an admin there or upload the image to the English Wikipedia (which only an admin can do) and it will automatically get protected here. You just need to add the template {{ C-uploaded}} to the image after uploading to the English Wikipedia. We can't have unprotected images on the main page - one of these days there's be a picture from this category on Commons for the world to see. You don't need to worry about this image, I protected it on Commons. This message is just a reminder, no need to respond. If you feel the need to respond, please do it on your talk page. Thanks for your help! Royal broil 22:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Per this discussion: [5] I would also like a way to track deprods. I've been asking Kingpin13 about if it is possible, and they directed me to that thread. Fences& Windows 00:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
In reply to your question on my talk page, the reasons I don't really want to place SDPatrol on the tool server, are because it's too complex a process, the way it's written currently (it requires me to press buttons, it has a large amount of interface, and often requires a start-stop, etc.), and I don't want to do a full re-write to change this, also their rules (which require me to subscribe to lists, and have yet another e-mail ;D), and I don't feel a huge need to :) - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 21:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've moved the contents of
Shell Exploration and Production Ireland to
Royal Dutch Shell as I didn't believe this article was necessary and the topic could be covered adequately in the larger article. I'm not sure if the request for deletion was declined becuase I didn't follow the correct protocol? Please advise. Thanks
GainLine
♠
♥
11:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
db-move|PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE}}
and only then if you plan to move a page to the location you tagged. General cleanup can be requested using {{
db-g6|reason=REASON}}
but as I said in this case, it was not deletable anyway. Regards
So
Why
13:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Cheers, thanks for that. I know now!
GainLine
♠
♥
16:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
SoWhy, I put my vote in at the bottom as nomination withdrawn. I do not know how to close the AFD, as I think removing the article constitutes vandalism. Could you please close the AFD as "nominator withdrawn". Thank you. keystoneridin! ( talk) 17:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, if you have the time could you take a look at my report at WP:3RRN? Knowing it, it probably won't be looked at until tomorrow otherwise. Thanks, -- aktsu ( t / c) 19:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, you recently declined a speedy deletion tag ( WP:A7) that I placed on the Subspace trip mine article. I left a message on the talk page explaining why it qualified for A7. As an item uploaded to an online game is it not considered web content? Can you please give me some more detail? Anything helps. Thanks in advance!-- Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 06:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey SoWhy, I'm wondering if you can help me understand what I need to do to finish SUL/usurpation. The nowiki user was moved so I could have that account, but I'm unsure of how to log into it, or what I need to do. (create a new account?)
Second, there's a contrib or two at dewiki, so that seems stuck. Here's my request over there: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilfe_Diskussion:Benutzernamen_%C3%A4ndern/Problemf%C3%A4lle#Future_plans
I understand dewiki is .. a sticking point in the whole SUL process. That's disappointing, because now that should be the only blocker in my new SUL superpowers.
I'm not asking you to fix it- I'm just wondering if you can give me pointers on those two topics- what I need to do next. tedder ( talk) 05:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
There's also certain Swiss German dialects using this. Tends to drive me crazy :) MLauba ( talk) 15:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 20:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Re speedy: I have a very uncomfortable feeling with this page. Several assertions about run-ins with police, threats being made, yelling, etc. are being made without being sourced. The second paragraph is an alarm bell IMHO ("Much of what follows cannot easily be externally referenced although, as the individual concerned still lives in the area and is active on the internet, anything which is considered factually inaccurate will be challenged quickly. Archive searches of the Governor's minutes will provide verification for much of what is written, and a number of newspapers and the BBC have also researched the issues and are quoted below.") As this is a BLP, such unsourced statements should be deleted. -- Crusio ( talk) 13:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi again. First, I forgot to say thanks above - so, thanks! I was wondering about your thoughts regarding Java Kingpin ( talk · contribs), ExitGhost ( talk · contribs) and LavaLamp2 ( talk · contribs), all of whom are involved with the House of Pain (Apparel)-article which is currently at AFD. ExitGhost and LavaLamp2 were both created within the same hour Java Kingpin made his return after not editing for over a year and they currently have 50% (2/4, LavaLamp2 hasn't voted or even edited for the last four days) of the "votes" at the AFD so I wouldn't mind making sure they're not socks. What would be the way to go about that? A SPI-report just seems very drastic for such as small issue where there's no obvious abuse, just two reasonable keeps for an article about a company which could potentially be pretty notable but which doesn't have the most searchable name when it comes to finding coverage of it. I'm thinking it's most likely they just know each-other and wanted to help out ExitGhost after seeing people was looking to delete "his" article, but I guess that's not totally OK either (WP:MEAT etc. Not saying they were actually recruited)? What would be the best course of action in this case? Asking a CU to take a quick look at it (are they allowed to do that without a proper report?), go to SPI or simply mark them with the "few edits outside this topic"-template? Thanks, -- aktsu ( t / c) 17:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
While passing by Template talk:Did you know, I noticed that you were mistaken at Template talk:Did you know#Michael E. Wysession ( permalink). Though you were correct in not passing Michael E. Wysession, you were wrong in your reasoning. Please read my explanation at the aforementioned link. Cheers, Cunard ( talk) 20:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm unsure whether or not policy allows for articles added at the end of backlog to be passed, but I strongly believe that it should. If a user forgot to nominate their article for DYK until a day or two after the cutoff date of five days, they would be denied a DYK. There is no harm in passing articles that are a day or two overdue. The cutoff date is officially five days, but I believe that it should be until the article no longer belonged under "Older nominations". This will slightly add to the backlog, but it really doesn't take that long to verify that an article passes the DYK guidelines. Cunard ( talk) 21:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is it that you constantly challenge me on every AFD that I decide on. You seem to follow me around looking to challenge everything that I do. I make good faith edits and I do not vandalize any of the AFD boards if that's what you are trying to get me for. I realize that you are an admin, but I do not think that just because you rewrote the entire article as an admin automatically qualifies the article as saved. keystoneridin! ( talk) 00:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)