![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Hi. I'm curious what assertion in this article you considered a claim of significance. All I can tell from it is that a band created the group, that band is its ONLY client, it has a partner label, there's a reason it was created, and there's a reason for its name. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 21:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
You mentioned that you're the type of person who would be willing to sponsor someone as an administrator on Wikipedia. I tried nominating myself back in 2005 after I'd only been here a couple of years and that was shot down, mainly because I guess it was felt I hadn't taken it all that seriously.
Now, nine years later I think I've gone as far as I can as a regular editor and I think my behavior and the quality of my many thousands of edits and talents indicate I qualify to become an admin. I'll give you some examples.
This is just some of the things I have done to make Wikipedia a better place, and I think with Administrator privileges I can do more things to make things better. Like, say I have an idea for a really good improvement to the main page, I can discuss that - that is a big change that I wouldn't do without getting a consensus - and if there's no objection then I can implement it without having to beg someone to do it for me. For less important but otherwise protected pages where I can see there is room for a really good improvement, I can just offer it.
But I do think I would qualify and I'd like your input and whether you think I would be worth sponsoring as an administrator. I've asked a couple other people, not to try to play one off against the other, but so that if I'm not up to snuff you or they can give me some input into where I'm deficient. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) ( talk) 21:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you please explain why you deleted User:Olliemilne with no reason, no vandalism, and just basically no good intention whatsoever? Surely you, as an admin, should not be carrying out hasty user page deletes with no real evidence of vandalism? -- bydand• talk 09:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Way back in 2009 you closed the template for deletion for this template at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 25#Template:Jackie Chan Films as "speedy delete as G4" as being a recreation since the template was previously discussed and deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 16#Template:Fred Astaire Films. For whatever reason the template was never deleted and still exists to this day. Could you please delete the template now? Thank you, Aspects ( talk) 15:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
(outdent) Just to let you know, I nominated the template for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 25#Template:Jackie Chan Films. Aspects ( talk) 23:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar |
Just read your page on Common A7 Mistakes - Excellent article - thank you so much! Schwindy ( talk) 15:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
questions and help
Thank you for your helpful gnomish presence and thoughtful questions in general, particularly
supporting 28bytes! I am not the first one to notice: you are an
awesome Wikipedian (8 February and 16 April 2009)!
Two years ago, you were the 202nd recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
You wrote: "Undid revision 621527776 by DreamGuy (talk) not every entry in the section might be notable but deleting the whole section isn't the solution. For example, the use in the Bartle Test is notable"
I wrote: "Undid revision 621539956 by SoWhy (talk) if you believe some are notable, why don't you restore only the ones you think are notable instead of blind reverting? I think none are notable"
You wrote: "Undid revision 623247950 by DreamGuy (talk) per WP:PRESERVE that would have been your job, not mine, but in the spirit of avoiding further revert-warring, I did it for you. Also added a source"
I think you are reading the section you linked to wrong. It says to preserve things that are appropriate. You are the one who thinks they are appropriate, not me, so you need to do the preserving. How am I supposed to know to preserve something you think you want?
To the contrary, if you revert an edit when you are only opposed to a small part of it, it is up to you to make an edit that actually supports what you say you think should be done instead of just everything someone else did. You say above you only did so to avoid an edit war, but you should always do it, just as a matter of good faith editing. Blind reverting is counterproductive and needlessly confrontational. DreamGuy ( talk) 02:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Template:Coding has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Reticulated Spline (
t •
c)
00:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The article UXUA Casa Hotel & Spa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Victão Lopes
Fala!
05:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wanderlust (software). Since you had some involvement with the Wanderlust (software) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Parent5446 ☯ ( msg email) 17:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
My page content meet all wikipedia policies and its not like advertisement then why my page wass deleted? Can you please tel me the reasons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.18.177.46 ( talk) 15:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Why my page Very Extreme Hacking was deleted? Can you please tel me the reasons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Springfield ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
It sounds like you already spent quite a bit of time on the Yelp page to get abreast of the discussion, so I feel a bit guilty asking for something else. But here a GA reviewer has been waiting for a second opinion. Specifically, he says he feels the article may be promotional, but he's not sure if my COI disclosure is simply creating a bias in his review. I almost always take articles where I have a COI the GA route (Yelp is also GA).
If you just don't want to, or don't have time or whatever, it's not a problem. But if you're interested, a quick second look would be very useful. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you created User:SoWhy/Bernd Brinkmann in 2010 and then Bernd Brinkmann in February 2013 but was your version from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bernd Brinkmann? It was created in between and then all three versions were active at the same time. The Wikipedia talk version doesn't seem to match your version but your version seems to make that one? Should I restore and history merge those two versions? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jörg Kachelmann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tabloid. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sam & Max - What's New, Beelzebub.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sam & Max - Ice Station Santa.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sam & Max - Night of the Raving Dead.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sam & Max - Chariots of the Dogs.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
SoWhy,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Norse Am Legend/MyWorldMyWay, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Norse Am Legend/MyWorldMyWay and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
User:Norse Am Legend/MyWorldMyWay during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Ricky81682 (
talk)
09:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
In case you weren't aware, a lot of people are citing WP:NOTINHERITED as the reason why, well, none of the claims you give at that essay are credible claims of significance. I strongly disagree, and also believe anyone who says that doesn't understand what a credible claim of significance is. A few others, such as Appable: also agree with the essay, but are being faced with overwhelming opposition at every turn. I've been asked whether I ought to launch an RfC to promote that essay into a guideline. What are your thoughts? I don't think it's likely given the opposition I'm receiving. Adam9007 ( talk) 23:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |
questions and help | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 202 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
I am asking you to unblock a deletion of a page written for musical artist Paneye from 2011. Paneye has gained considerable fans and publications since 2011, making it a suitable inclusion for Wikipedia. Paneye is mentioned on other wikipedia articles such as affiliated record label Orchid Tapes.
Orchid Tapes: /info/en/?search=Orchid_Tapes
I look forward to your positive response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sisterfog ( talk • contribs) 11:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello SoWhy, I hope you are doing well. I saw your nominations and would like to ask you to review my edits to check if I'm ready for adminship and then will you be able to nominate me. Thank you – GSS ( talk) 10:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, SoWhy. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, SoWhy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I guess I wasn't clear: sorry. My point was that admins ought to have a vague idea how they'd respond in such a situation, since for practical purposes we're the most privileged people (in the Privilege (computing) sense) at one of the world's top websites. As major users, we're more easily identifiable than the average user (in the incident of which I spoke, the entity in question discerned my identity and made its demands via a note to my private email address) and in the 1984 sense, more equal as well. Sure, the details of your response will depend on the situation, but you should have a basic sense of how you'd try to respond if possible. Nyttend ( talk) 02:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Pablo Hidalgo at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Arun Kumar SINGH
(Talk)
09:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi again,
I'm sorry to say that this essay is causing me big problems. It's to the point that I may end up having to nominate it for deletion! Like before far too many people believe WP:NOTINHERITED and/or the notability guidelines (*sighs* I know...) WP:INHERITORG and Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#No_inherited_notability apply to significance and A7. For example, not that long ago, I removed an A7 tag from an article about a website created by a notable person. The tagger raised holy hell about it on my talk page (citing Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#No_inherited_notability), and the ensuring AfD (which ironically resulted in keep). Three editors said there was no claim of significance and therefore a valid A7. If this (which occurred after a similar A7 tag removal) is to be believed, the meaning of NOTINHERITED is that such claims (which would include most claims listed at the "Common indications of importance or significance" as they rely on some sort of connexion with someone of something notable) mean nothing. I even wrote an essay of my own focusing primarily on the (non-existent) connexion between A7 and NOTINHERITED, and it earned me a barnstar (yipee!), but it has also been used against me. More recently, User:Toddst1 (pinging him for comment) described my application of A7 (based largely on your essay) as "BS" and "outside the general consensus", based on numerous discussions (many of which involve an A7 decline based on a claim listed in your essay), including an ANI thread. I may have made some questionable tag removals here and there, but I'm convinced it's ultimately following the advice of this essay that has lead to most of my trouble with the community. I'm also convinced I'll end up at ANI again (which will almost certainly lead to a topic ban, as suggested) if I continue to follow your essay. What I've said here barely scratches the surface: I have also been criticised for declining A7s with no sources, the idea being that without them, the claim is not credible. But in my experience, this essay is way outside "established consensus" (if you can call it that), and I suspect that the reason I've been landed in trouble and not others is because I'm much more active in A7 reviewing. There is a discussion that address the NOTINHERITED issue, but it has been declared invalid because it was not representative of the community. I've had a lot of feedback on my A7 application, and recent discussions suggest I cannot follow both it and this essay, as they contradict each other. So who am I to believe? If I follow this essay, I will be labelled disruptive for not accepting community feedback, which defeats the whole purpose of advice given in essays being optional: in this case it's more along the lines of "forbidden". I do not want to nominate, but I just can't see what else to do or how else to settle this confusion, because, let's face it: the community are not going to follow your essay because they do not agree with it. That's rather worrying for a page (even a user essay) offering guidance in the manner yours does. I'll provide more links if need be. Regards. Adam9007 ( talk) 04:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
On 17 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pablo Hidalgo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that J. J. Abrams consulted Pablo Hidalgo up to three times a day while filming Star Wars: The Force Awakens? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pablo Hidalgo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Pablo Hidalgo), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed the removal of "Johanna Larsson (disambiguation)." Might I ask why? There are two Johanna Larsson's on wikipedia and usually I would see some sort of disambiguation page to direct me to the correct one. Is it because there are only two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyunck(click) ( talk • contribs) 06:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
You declined the speedy deletion of Mercado de Campo de Ourique, saying:
I have to disagree with this rationale. The term market can refer to:
Clicking the link provided as the sole reference for this article, I find that the Mercado de Campo de Ourique appears to be a garden-variety supermarket, which does qualify for an A7 deletion. Further, the A7 deletion criterion refers to an article that "makes no credible assertion of notability". I.e., whether a topic may or may not be notable is not at issue; what is at issue is that the article has made no assertion of notability. However, as you have declined the speedy deletion, I will move the matter to AFD. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 20:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Why did you nominate the Main Page for deletion? Are you in control of your account at the moment? Patient Zero talk 12:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
:-), and thanks to Od Mishehu for actually knowing what to do and for taking the time to explain. Patient Zero talk 12:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I figured it must be a faulty script. As soon as I saw the main page, I knew that the first priority was to fix it (this, of course, required checking that it was the main page itself, not a transcluded page, where the template was located), second priority is to check if we need to be concerned about a compromized admin account; as soon as I opened your recent edits, I could tell it was a malfunctioning script. All otrher actions I was going to do (including looking at my talk page, which would otherwise be top priority) would be below these. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Enjoy your trout! :) Also, have you considered Template:Trout me for your user page? MM ('"HURRRR?) (Hmmmmm.) 02:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello. First let me say, I understand, why you had to delete the page, that's the rules of wikipedia. But I don't understand why you didn't inform me prior to the deletion! I came here today to copy most of the page and create an article about Collin Bowman in the German WP - and had to realize, everything has gone. I don't insist on restoring the page, but maybe you can somehow send me the article for named purpose? WLinsmayer ( talk) 19:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
My deepest apologies, I only now realized what happened (which is still very stupid of me, but I thought I'd provide an explanation): I clicked the wrong one. I meant to CSD under A7, non-notable individual (which hopefully at least makes sense; if you would've still declined it, please let me know). "Article claims coverage in reliable sources" is definitely not a good reason. Again, sorry about that! -- Nerd1a4i ( talk) 21:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
ping|SoWhy}}
and not copy
my signature. But there is no need to ping someone if you already use their talk page since they will automatically be notified anyway. But it's a good way to notify users when talking to/about them on other talk pages, hence Adam's and my use here. Regards
So
Why
08:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Please help me remove noindex meta. Thanks.-- Rohkum ( talk) 17:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
You added a CSD decline of WudStay Travels to your log, but I was the one who declined that. Did you try to decline it at the same time but I did it faster? Adam9007 ( talk) 20:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
If you click on "Kelsey Grammer" on that Trump endorsement article, you still go right to Grammer's Wikipedia article. In other words, I don't think your intended change to his link got through. Ch4ck it out, and educate me in what's aniss. I will read the article thanks. Lovecats1000 ( talk) 21:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Lovecats1000
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy User:Ron7905/sandbox/Ron Franklin - Drifter was undeleted so that it could be discussed at my RFA, I'm thinking it should probably be returned to the dumpster. You did the undelete, so I thought it best to ask your opinion rather than to delete it myself as some might think it a bit pointy. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 14:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey there, I saw you had declined the bot report for this IP. I wanted to let you know, that's a block evading IP, the edit filter is triggered by this user who has been spamming this NN person lately in various articles (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Randikasyap/Archive). RickinBaltimore ( talk) 15:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your review of my DYK nomination. The article has been corrected to conform with your suggestions, and I believe that your input regarding the hook is a fine improvement. But it doesn't appear any other reviewers have seized upon the opportunity to complete the (now) simple review process. The nomination seems stuck in a backwater eddy. Any suggestions? Gulbenk ( talk) 19:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I saw that at User talk:Mbcopeland you said that using IRC would be considered block evasion. Is that supported by any guideline, policy or precendent? To the best of my knowledge blocked editors are no more restricted from chatting in Wikipedia-related IRC channels (which are not run by the WMF) than from talking to their friends who also might be Wikipedians. There's even the #wikipedia-en-unblock channel which addresses unblock requests; I don't think ending up in the wrong channel (and others are far easier to find than -unblock) should be considered an aggravating circumstance. I also think there are plenty of reasons not to unblock Mbcopeland, but I'm not sure this is one of them. Huon ( talk) 00:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
If you guys don't mind me chipping in, it sounds like the matter of where IRC stands in terms of Block Evasion, could be the kind of thing where there isn't yet a clear consensus, and an RFC on this to establish some consensus could benefit the encyclopaedia. @ Slakr and Huon: and SoWhy, any opinion on this idea? MM ('"HURRRR?) (Hmmmmm.) 17:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I see you declined A7 on St. Paul's Lutheran Church (Ashland, KY) because "buildings are not eligible under A7" (which is correct), but are you saying that all churches are buildings, or just that article? I was once heavily criticised for "wasting time" for declining an A7 on an article about a church because "churches are organisations" (unfortunately, I can't remember which article it was, but I'm very sure what was what was said. I had declined for the same reason you declined this one.). There was a discussion about it a while ago, but there wasn't really a straight answer, just the usual "it depends". But most people I've come across consider churches to be organisations and thus are A7-eligible. I can certainly see how some might consider it an organisation (for example, how can a building be affiliated with anything?) I'd say the article is more about the building, but the issue remains as to which category churches (as a subject) fall under. I'd imagine most would say organisation, which would probably be taken to mean all articles about a church are A7-eligible. Given that, how is it possible to justify saying a church is a building? I'd imagine it's very difficult to talk about one without mentioning some sort of business. I actually can't help but wonder what would have happened had I declined that A7 (you'd probably remember the recent hoo-ha about tourist attractions, most of which are considered organisations rather than places, even if it's just because visitors have to pay for entry). Regards. Adam9007 ( talk) 21:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
You disobeyed an arbitration committee enforcement so I had to report you to wp:ani. 2602:306:3357:BA0:CC96:1326:B338:F16F ( talk) 04:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, regarding my declined RPP request about that page, I want to elaborate:
Special:History/Asaram - counting from 1 January 2017, (being generous i.e. counting multiple edits with just a single revert as one) there have been 13 reverts and not a single new user constructive edit. The only edit left is one by 30 Jan which was, by far, done by an experienced editor and the only change in that article besides mine. Compare those reverts with a month, and you get a rate of 2-3 per day approx.
I'll be quick to add that I don't intend to press this issue. The only thing that bothered me is my interpretation of PP being wrong. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 14:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi again.
I noticed a couple of things about this page: 1) Your CSD log says it was tagged for G11 by User:Houseonbluehill, but it wasn't, it was User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. 2) It appears to be copied from the article CriticalBlue. Is this a copyright violation? Adam9007 ( talk) 22:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your continued help with this. I had copied (I won't do that again!) the CriticalBlue page to my sandbox so that I could then make some proposed updates, I then put an edit request (due to COI) in the CriticalBlue talk page. I realise I have made a couple of mistakes along the way and now have warnings on my userspace - is this likely to impact my request for the update to be considered? I have tried to provide neutral references and the changes I have requested are to give a more accurate picture of the work the company does. Thanks.
Houseonbluehill ( talk) 13:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (2) and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks, ~ Rob13 Talk 17:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
yes
Jacktime34 (
talk)
01:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
...thank you for pointing me to the request for clarification. After reading the wording, and the replies of the arbitrators....I still see a certain amount of disgression for admins. The case in point at WP:RFP would have been adequately protected by semi, imho. And thanks for the heads-up. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar ( talk) 14:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey SoWhy I am a different person editor Jerrymistake. I am not same as person as Gracewan 2016 and Bradlay2016. Bradlay2016 is creating different Grace Wan. I am creaing Grace Yu Ye Wan. Grace Wan and Grace Yu Ye Wan both have same names, but its different person. In the world there were thousands of same name person can call "Grace" and lots of people can have first and last name is "Grace Wan." For example I heard lots of same common names is "Chris", "John", etc. but is different person. I am creating with articles and this articles talks about a real living person
Hello,
I see you declined my speedy delete / move request at Xseed Games. Obviously there's no particular harm in opening up a RM, but I disagree that this speedy criteria doesn't apply. The main criteria is if there is a non-trivial page history - there isn't - and if there was signs of a controversy / discussion. e.g. this shouldn't be done if there was any sort of argument or a previous RM. The original move was done without discussion, and three editors have signaled opposition since (and one person even tried to do a copy-and-paste move "back"). Now sure, maybe the move might be wrong, but then it's on them to open a RM - reverting moves made without discussion to the previous title doesn't usually qualify as "controversial", or, at least, no more controversial than the original move - they're just held up for technical reasons. To do otherwise privileges the "first mover". SnowFire ( talk) 23:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Template:PD-Highsmith has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Sfan00 IMG (
talk)
14:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).
Hi,
I saw your comments at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_February_22#Steve_Salis, and get the impression that you, like me, think G11 says the article itself must be promotional in tone, and irreparably? As you may have seen from the DRV, a lot of people seem to think that COI and/or paid editing alone constitutes blatant advertising and automatically qualifies the page for G11. I'm wondering if A reworking of G11 is in order. I'm talking about not only this, but other recent examples:
Fortrade. I couldn't see any blatant advertising here. Is it advertising? Maybe. But is it obvious? I don't see how. In the ensuring discussion on my talk page, the tagger seemed to think that sourcing counts towards an page's eligibility for G11.
Cavern Pub. Again, I couldn't see any blatant advertising. At worst, there were a couple of slightly spammy bits that could easily have been removed. As for the ensuring discussion, what can I say? It was despite the fact that another editor had previously proposed a merge, so obviously it wasn't obvious to him, or he'd have suggested deletion.
And the worst one - Abscription. I declined G11, because I cannot see any advertising of abscription or anything else here. Maybe it's my Asperger's but I just see a load of technical/scientific jargon, none of which I even vaguely understand. Even if I don't understand the subject, I do think I'd recognise "blatant advertising" if I see it. The tagger threw a wobbler and made personal attacks against me, threatening me with a topic ban: 1 2 3
I saw in your Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion that you say "blatant advertising" is statements like "Buy software XXX now!!!". I saw nothing like that in any of these articles. At these and the comments at AfD for Fortrade (where editors are calling me incompetent), it would seem that most people's definition of "blatant advertising" is much, much more lenient than "Buy software XXX now!!!". Wikipedia:Field_guide_to_proper_speedy_deletion#11._Blatant_promotion, although not a guideline, says "blatant spam" is not articles whose tone is merely questionable. It would seem that most people think that questionable tones do count as blatant advertising'. I'm not saying these articles were any good, but I don't believe they were at the level of "blatant advertising" as described by those two essays. Maybe G11 should be reworded to mean any Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING violations, even suspected ones? I thought I'd ask someone who knows what they are talking about rather than just suggesting such a thing, as it will probably be laughed at. Regards. Adam9007 ( talk) 03:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Dear SoWhy and friendly talk page stalkers,
I'll try to make my question as brief as possible:
I consider myself, primarily, as a user and onlooker, rather than as an editor or a wikipedian. Although interested, I do not have the time, nor the energy, to follow the development of different wikipedias. Time changes – often to the better – and suddenly the customs of yesteryear are outdated.
This winter, however, I've made a few attempts at sourcing articles in topics that I have read up on earlier in my life. My personal opinion is that quotes are good, as are source templates instead of "free text" references. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that quotes from sources in foreign languages ought to be avoided, unless translated. It may well be, that I sooner or later discover that the wikipedia community disagrees with me. Which I then have to take with equanimity.
Meanwhile, I ponder if links to publishers are, fundamentally, good or bad.
— I might expand on that, if necessary. But I believe that any experienced wikipedian would see at least a pair of advantages as well as disadvantages with
this solution, that in turn required the creation of a stub:
Natur & Kultur.
If so, what notability criterion ought to be met for publishers outside of the English speaking countries?
In the particular case of Natur & Kultur, I do not doubt its relevance, but somewhere a line has to be drawn.
Then there are author-links. The questions are the same, although slightly more sensitive, since authors may be still alive:
Best regards! / Johan M. Olofsson ( talk) 19:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy. I was going through RFPP and I noticed you semi'd User talk:DrStrauss for two weeks (as was requested). I am concerned however that there was not enough disruption to justify protecting the page. From looking at the history it appears that a single IP posted a number of messages and was blocked for making personal attacks. However, as DrStrauss is involved in anti-vandal work there have been a number of legitimate messages from editors asking for clarification, help, or pointing out a mistake DrStrauss had made. As most of these notes were from non autoconfirmed users and are not disruptive I am concerned we are being slightly heavy handed by protecting the talk page and preventing users with legitimate queries from posting. Clearly the IP making personal attacks was correctly blocked, but I wanted to ask if I am missing something else here that underpins why we protected the page? Best, Mifter ( talk) 21:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Colin Smythe is Pratchett's editor and has emailed the Committee. I'm convinced the username is legitimate and that he is Colin Smythe. I'd like to unblock him. He'll need to have COI issues, etc. explained to him of course. Doug Weller talk 17:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I was just wondering for further reference and so I do not make the same mistake with CSD G5 nominations, what constitutes a significant edit [by other editors]? If all of the actual article content is added by the blocked user- and then other editors clean things up, then these edits are significant? I guess a better question would be what is an insignificant edit? DJ Blue is what sparked this question. Thanks. JacobiJonesJr ( talk) 19:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
You declined the speedy deletion of Eden Wiggins stating "Decline speedy - starring in a notable series indicates significance". A single appearance in one episode as the young version of one of the series' characters hardly counts as a "starring" role. I'll take to AFD. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 16:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough on the declined speedy. I had tried to put the article up for WP:AFD, but the process broke down at step 2 when it loaded Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Salomon with its "no further edits" instruction. How do I get around that? Thanks in advance. Narky Blert ( talk) 17:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
May I ask what can be done to avoid the deletion of the pages I created which were the UN JPO Programme and JPO (Junior Professional Officer)?
Thank you.
Kind regards -- Intern315 ( talk) 21:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eden Wiggins (one of your A7 declines) - "frankly, the rejection of said A7 request was erroneous". Why can't they just accept your decline and move on? It seems I was mistaken in believing that admins are immune to this is the sort of stuff, as it's the sort of thing I keep having to deal with (for the record, I agree with the decline, there is a CCS and it cites a reliable source). No wonder I'm beginning to think our essays are too far outside consensus, whatever that is. After a comment like that, you could be forgiven for thinking it was one of my declines :). I'm frequently accused of wasting time, but the irony is that those who moan and argue with me about it waste more time in doing so. Adam9007 ( talk) 03:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion imho shows that there is still some problems with what consensus exists to treat different subjects when it comes to A7. As I have hopefully demonstrated above, WT:CSD and other noticeboards are full of discussions that are helpful in determining consensus. Thus I have started Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance as an analogue of WP:OUTCOMES and I'm inviting all interested talk page stalkers and other users to help me expand this into a collection of common claims that new page patrollers and patrolling admins alike can use to help them decide whether to tag/delete an article or not. The goal is to have references for all claims that point people to the relevant discussions about it. Feel free to add more references. Also, if you happen to find discussions where consensus was reached that a certain claim explicitly is not enough, feel free to create a new section and add that information there since it's helpful as well. Regards So Why 19:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
y-ep, that's right. Ygm. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 18:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
A clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 18:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Is there a way to find out what percentage of our CSDs are successful (beyond looking through our edit histories)? I founds some AfD info here, but my CSD noms don't seem to be logged. I enjoy sandwiches ( talk) 18:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I am curious to know your reasoning for not blocking User:Ohhfuckyeahahh who I reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. User:Widr has subsequently blocked him. Whilst I realise that Wikipedia is not censored I have never known profanities being allowed in usernames like this as per Wikipedia:Username_policy#Disruptive_or_offensive_usernames Theroadislong ( talk) 17:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Please put this news on Main page, the Party of current Dutch PM won the elections. 217.76.1.22 ( talk) 13:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. You indeffed the user for WP:NOTHERE for doing nothing here but using his user pages as if WP was a social networking site, so would you mind removing his talk page access too, for repeatedly adding an {{Infobox person}} to it, with photo and all, i.e. still using it as a Facebook page or whatever? (Semi-protecting his user pages might also be a good idea since he with all probably will continue adding the infobox using IPs...) - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there,
I hope this message finds you well! I am a musician starting to gain some traction online. I saw that you edited some information on the Amazons band Profile and wondered if I could get some advice from you?
A few of my fans have mentioned that they are going to set up a wiki page for me, this is great but obviously I don't know them personally. My only concern is keeping the content relevant and factually accurate. I of course have had various articles written about my music as I know back links are important to keeping the content relevant. Do you have any advice regarding this?
Would be great to hear back from you,
Many thanks, Oli -- Forthsix123 ( talk) 21:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, would you mind letting me know for future reference if Ufc210liveonline qualifies under A7 (events) and/or G11, due to WP:COI. Thanks in advance for your help! Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 20:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).
Thank you Sowhy for your help on building and fixing the Alan Abel (musician) page. I appreciate that so much, as this is the first page I have ever worked on. About the picture that I would like to put on the page, I already uploaded it. I just don't understand how to get it on the page. It is called Alan Abel of the Philadelphia Orchestra jpg. I own the photo and I give it free to all. If you can locate that photo and post it on the Alan Abel (musician) page I would be very grateful. Otherwise, if you will give me instructions, I will do it. Thank you again for your expertise! Brian Del Signore aka Ihavetantrums — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihavetantrums ( talk • contribs) 16:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello SoWhy,
Thank you for adding the picture to the Alan Abel page. I hope people will come now and add information to the page. The answer to your question about his birth date is as follows: December 6, 1928 is the correct date. You have two references that verify that date. The one that said 1930, is in my opinion, a guess by the author of that book at that time. I made a phone call today and spoke to Alan Abel's wife, She verified his birthday as December 6, 1928. Thank you so very much for helping me get this page started in a proper way! 2602:306:3133:C420:0:0:0:40 ( talk) 15:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Brian Del Signore aka Ihavetantrums
Thanks for your hard work patrolling CSD candidates. You denied CSD on Adapti.me so I moved it over to an AfD in case you want to follow it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adapti.me. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco ( talk) 07:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Do you want this guy to run RfA? He's had a previous one under his old account as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/APerson in September 2015 which ran the full 7 days, closing with straight fail of just under 65% support. Looking back, it does seem like a "not yet" rather than a "not ever" RfA, people suggested they'd be comfortable with a second one in due course. I'd have a read of Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/APerson#Discussion from question 7 and check with SilkTork and HJ Mitchell, who made good oppose votes last time, and see if they are comfortable first, to check there are no obvious unresolved problems. Then if all the standard AfD / CSD / civility / content checks work out, I don't see why we can't make a go of RfA #2. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello SoWhy, recently you made a decision on something I did. I just wanted to give you a friendly notice that I had a question on my talk page for you. Thank you. DeVonne ( talk) 13:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, this is to let you know that your latest message on GR'"s crat chat is truncated. Given that you have edited elsewhere since then, I'm not sure you noticed. Ideally the unsigned template I put in would ping you, but I'm not sure it does, since I'm not signing, so there... — Gamall Wednesday Ida ( t · c) 19:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Why was my page deleted and what do i need to do to get it back up
-- Jonny Vegas Namer ( talk) 19:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Jonny Vegas Namer 4/9/2017
That was an impressive post.
Fancy another tilt at RfB? -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 13:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd nominate you. If we're going to do this, it'll need to start in about a fortnight, as I won't be about much and think it's unfair to nominate and then bog off, leaving the nominee on their own, no matter how competent they are. I think your comments at BN just now were interesting timing - I'll go disagree with you there. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 14:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy. In a recent RfA someone linked to an essay that you wrote about why accuracy in CSD noms is important. Reading that changed my opinion on the importance of CSD noms when evaluating an admin candidate, so thanks for that. But, since I can't find it again, could you point me to it? Thanks! -- regentspark ( comment) 16:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing WP:ATD to my attention. Funnily enough, that escaped my reading and is a pretty solid and concise policy. A shove in the right direction is always greatly appreciated. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 00:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey SoWhy, I'm considering running for adminship sometime soon, but I'd love to know your opinion on whether or not I should because you're obviously versed in these matters, and are very thorough in your analysis. If you've got any spare time, would you be able to take a look at my suitability? Cheers, Anarchyte ( work | talk) 00:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Anarchyte: Okay, I had some time to review your contributions and I have some questions I like you to answer:
That's all for now but I will have a look at your other contributions later. Regards So Why 18:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on Z1 Radio? I came across it doing the 'patrolling' I mentioned/described on my talk page in (part of the) response to your message and was wondering if it should be nominated for CSD or not based on how it has links within the article (which itself is 4 sentences) with the only reference being the radio station's website and it is in the main namespace. Just thought I would ask before nominating and get your opinion on it. Thanks for your time! -- TheSandDoctor ( talk) 16:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
How can I delete my account? Albert raxx paco ( talk) 10:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Earlier today I restored an author-removed A7 on ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE which you then declined. It's since been deleted G5 but the question of whether a crammer should get the protection from A7 given to schools still bugs me. I've raised the question at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 - Are crammers protected? & I'd appreciate your views. Thanks, Cabayi ( talk) 09:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I had to decline your Prod on On Wah Chang due to an objection on the talk page. But this looks like a solid candidate for AfD if you want to send it along. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
On 22 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alan Abel (musician), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alan Abel served as a percussionist for the Philadelphia Orchestra for 38 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alan Abel (musician). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Alan Abel (musician)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I think you should consider your decision here:
The company called UniSoft Infotech Corporation is probably a confusion with an Indian company with a similar name " Unisoft Infotech" that has no relationship to the company described by the article UniSoft. The original move from Unisoft to UniSoft Infotech Corporation was a mistake. It is misleading to keep the redirect in place.
There are no links in article space to UniSoft Infotech Corporation so can you either overturn you decision and delete the redirect or agree to let me delete it. -- PBS ( talk) 14:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Good morning from Calabria, I'm writing to say hello to you and know how you are, I'm fine for now, working between fields and on Wikipedia. I am writing to ask you a courtesy, always if you go, and always and in any case returning your courtesy. Please could you give a small translation help regarding these biographies? Right and no more than 5 to 15 minutes of your precious time, maybe I'm asking too much, but I hope you can do something for me. I will be available to you within my limits, for the rest I thank you in advance for what you will do for me. A greeting from Calabria-- Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino ( talk) 14:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Good morning from Calabria, dear Alessandro. I am writing to thank you very much for what you did for me, I hope all right there for you. I'm pretty good, I apologize if I did not answer you right away, but I often have to do with my father who is sick for a month because he fell and hurt two ribs and two vertebrae, being a single male child and Home, they touch me some tasks. I would like to return courtesy, if you are interested in an article you would like to see translated into Italian and its dialect variants, I am at your complete disposal. A fraternal greeting from Coreca, soon!-- Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino ( talk) 12:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
... by your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Oppose (Modify); you say that you strongly disagree with me but then seem (to me at least) to make the exact same argument as me. I'm guessing that I haven't expressed myself very well there, so in the interests of improving my communication skills, can I just check what you think I was saying? I don't think I contradicted the lines of policy you quoted (or at any rate, I certainly didn't intend to), but if you believe I did, I've obviously failed to make myself clear! Thanks in advance, Yunshui 雲 水 10:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Ouch and thanks in equal measure. I could argue the point over some of the CSDs but an RfA isn't the place where they can successfully be argued.
The large figures for the use of AWB mostly date back to work on WP:SBS in 2008/9 & 2011 and work on removing myspace links in 2015 - if they're skewing my figures still, it's probable that they always will. I'd need to edit heavily for another 10 years before the proportion of AWB edits would shrink to a "normal" level.
Your point about promotional intent vs promotional words did ring true. I don't think I'll ever get over that hurdle - I've commented to several spammers that I, along with the other volunteers, am here to contribute to an encyclopedia, not to act as an unpaid copywriter for their company's advertising. I don't see my view on that changing.
Anyhow, as much as it hurts, thanks for the honesty. Cabayi ( talk) 13:32, 27 April 2017 (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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Hi. I'm curious what assertion in this article you considered a claim of significance. All I can tell from it is that a band created the group, that band is its ONLY client, it has a partner label, there's a reason it was created, and there's a reason for its name. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 21:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
You mentioned that you're the type of person who would be willing to sponsor someone as an administrator on Wikipedia. I tried nominating myself back in 2005 after I'd only been here a couple of years and that was shot down, mainly because I guess it was felt I hadn't taken it all that seriously.
Now, nine years later I think I've gone as far as I can as a regular editor and I think my behavior and the quality of my many thousands of edits and talents indicate I qualify to become an admin. I'll give you some examples.
This is just some of the things I have done to make Wikipedia a better place, and I think with Administrator privileges I can do more things to make things better. Like, say I have an idea for a really good improvement to the main page, I can discuss that - that is a big change that I wouldn't do without getting a consensus - and if there's no objection then I can implement it without having to beg someone to do it for me. For less important but otherwise protected pages where I can see there is room for a really good improvement, I can just offer it.
But I do think I would qualify and I'd like your input and whether you think I would be worth sponsoring as an administrator. I've asked a couple other people, not to try to play one off against the other, but so that if I'm not up to snuff you or they can give me some input into where I'm deficient. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) ( talk) 21:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you please explain why you deleted User:Olliemilne with no reason, no vandalism, and just basically no good intention whatsoever? Surely you, as an admin, should not be carrying out hasty user page deletes with no real evidence of vandalism? -- bydand• talk 09:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Way back in 2009 you closed the template for deletion for this template at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 25#Template:Jackie Chan Films as "speedy delete as G4" as being a recreation since the template was previously discussed and deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 16#Template:Fred Astaire Films. For whatever reason the template was never deleted and still exists to this day. Could you please delete the template now? Thank you, Aspects ( talk) 15:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
(outdent) Just to let you know, I nominated the template for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 25#Template:Jackie Chan Films. Aspects ( talk) 23:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar |
Just read your page on Common A7 Mistakes - Excellent article - thank you so much! Schwindy ( talk) 15:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
questions and help
Thank you for your helpful gnomish presence and thoughtful questions in general, particularly
supporting 28bytes! I am not the first one to notice: you are an
awesome Wikipedian (8 February and 16 April 2009)!
Two years ago, you were the 202nd recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
You wrote: "Undid revision 621527776 by DreamGuy (talk) not every entry in the section might be notable but deleting the whole section isn't the solution. For example, the use in the Bartle Test is notable"
I wrote: "Undid revision 621539956 by SoWhy (talk) if you believe some are notable, why don't you restore only the ones you think are notable instead of blind reverting? I think none are notable"
You wrote: "Undid revision 623247950 by DreamGuy (talk) per WP:PRESERVE that would have been your job, not mine, but in the spirit of avoiding further revert-warring, I did it for you. Also added a source"
I think you are reading the section you linked to wrong. It says to preserve things that are appropriate. You are the one who thinks they are appropriate, not me, so you need to do the preserving. How am I supposed to know to preserve something you think you want?
To the contrary, if you revert an edit when you are only opposed to a small part of it, it is up to you to make an edit that actually supports what you say you think should be done instead of just everything someone else did. You say above you only did so to avoid an edit war, but you should always do it, just as a matter of good faith editing. Blind reverting is counterproductive and needlessly confrontational. DreamGuy ( talk) 02:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Template:Coding has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Reticulated Spline (
t •
c)
00:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The article UXUA Casa Hotel & Spa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Victão Lopes
Fala!
05:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wanderlust (software). Since you had some involvement with the Wanderlust (software) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Parent5446 ☯ ( msg email) 17:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
My page content meet all wikipedia policies and its not like advertisement then why my page wass deleted? Can you please tel me the reasons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.18.177.46 ( talk) 15:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Why my page Very Extreme Hacking was deleted? Can you please tel me the reasons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Springfield ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
It sounds like you already spent quite a bit of time on the Yelp page to get abreast of the discussion, so I feel a bit guilty asking for something else. But here a GA reviewer has been waiting for a second opinion. Specifically, he says he feels the article may be promotional, but he's not sure if my COI disclosure is simply creating a bias in his review. I almost always take articles where I have a COI the GA route (Yelp is also GA).
If you just don't want to, or don't have time or whatever, it's not a problem. But if you're interested, a quick second look would be very useful. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you created User:SoWhy/Bernd Brinkmann in 2010 and then Bernd Brinkmann in February 2013 but was your version from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bernd Brinkmann? It was created in between and then all three versions were active at the same time. The Wikipedia talk version doesn't seem to match your version but your version seems to make that one? Should I restore and history merge those two versions? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jörg Kachelmann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tabloid. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sam & Max - What's New, Beelzebub.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sam & Max - Ice Station Santa.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sam & Max - Night of the Raving Dead.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sam & Max - Chariots of the Dogs.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
SoWhy,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
23:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Norse Am Legend/MyWorldMyWay, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Norse Am Legend/MyWorldMyWay and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
User:Norse Am Legend/MyWorldMyWay during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Ricky81682 (
talk)
09:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
In case you weren't aware, a lot of people are citing WP:NOTINHERITED as the reason why, well, none of the claims you give at that essay are credible claims of significance. I strongly disagree, and also believe anyone who says that doesn't understand what a credible claim of significance is. A few others, such as Appable: also agree with the essay, but are being faced with overwhelming opposition at every turn. I've been asked whether I ought to launch an RfC to promote that essay into a guideline. What are your thoughts? I don't think it's likely given the opposition I'm receiving. Adam9007 ( talk) 23:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |
questions and help | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 202 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
I am asking you to unblock a deletion of a page written for musical artist Paneye from 2011. Paneye has gained considerable fans and publications since 2011, making it a suitable inclusion for Wikipedia. Paneye is mentioned on other wikipedia articles such as affiliated record label Orchid Tapes.
Orchid Tapes: /info/en/?search=Orchid_Tapes
I look forward to your positive response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sisterfog ( talk • contribs) 11:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello SoWhy, I hope you are doing well. I saw your nominations and would like to ask you to review my edits to check if I'm ready for adminship and then will you be able to nominate me. Thank you – GSS ( talk) 10:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, SoWhy. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, SoWhy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I guess I wasn't clear: sorry. My point was that admins ought to have a vague idea how they'd respond in such a situation, since for practical purposes we're the most privileged people (in the Privilege (computing) sense) at one of the world's top websites. As major users, we're more easily identifiable than the average user (in the incident of which I spoke, the entity in question discerned my identity and made its demands via a note to my private email address) and in the 1984 sense, more equal as well. Sure, the details of your response will depend on the situation, but you should have a basic sense of how you'd try to respond if possible. Nyttend ( talk) 02:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Pablo Hidalgo at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Arun Kumar SINGH
(Talk)
09:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi again,
I'm sorry to say that this essay is causing me big problems. It's to the point that I may end up having to nominate it for deletion! Like before far too many people believe WP:NOTINHERITED and/or the notability guidelines (*sighs* I know...) WP:INHERITORG and Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#No_inherited_notability apply to significance and A7. For example, not that long ago, I removed an A7 tag from an article about a website created by a notable person. The tagger raised holy hell about it on my talk page (citing Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#No_inherited_notability), and the ensuring AfD (which ironically resulted in keep). Three editors said there was no claim of significance and therefore a valid A7. If this (which occurred after a similar A7 tag removal) is to be believed, the meaning of NOTINHERITED is that such claims (which would include most claims listed at the "Common indications of importance or significance" as they rely on some sort of connexion with someone of something notable) mean nothing. I even wrote an essay of my own focusing primarily on the (non-existent) connexion between A7 and NOTINHERITED, and it earned me a barnstar (yipee!), but it has also been used against me. More recently, User:Toddst1 (pinging him for comment) described my application of A7 (based largely on your essay) as "BS" and "outside the general consensus", based on numerous discussions (many of which involve an A7 decline based on a claim listed in your essay), including an ANI thread. I may have made some questionable tag removals here and there, but I'm convinced it's ultimately following the advice of this essay that has lead to most of my trouble with the community. I'm also convinced I'll end up at ANI again (which will almost certainly lead to a topic ban, as suggested) if I continue to follow your essay. What I've said here barely scratches the surface: I have also been criticised for declining A7s with no sources, the idea being that without them, the claim is not credible. But in my experience, this essay is way outside "established consensus" (if you can call it that), and I suspect that the reason I've been landed in trouble and not others is because I'm much more active in A7 reviewing. There is a discussion that address the NOTINHERITED issue, but it has been declared invalid because it was not representative of the community. I've had a lot of feedback on my A7 application, and recent discussions suggest I cannot follow both it and this essay, as they contradict each other. So who am I to believe? If I follow this essay, I will be labelled disruptive for not accepting community feedback, which defeats the whole purpose of advice given in essays being optional: in this case it's more along the lines of "forbidden". I do not want to nominate, but I just can't see what else to do or how else to settle this confusion, because, let's face it: the community are not going to follow your essay because they do not agree with it. That's rather worrying for a page (even a user essay) offering guidance in the manner yours does. I'll provide more links if need be. Regards. Adam9007 ( talk) 04:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
On 17 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pablo Hidalgo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that J. J. Abrams consulted Pablo Hidalgo up to three times a day while filming Star Wars: The Force Awakens? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pablo Hidalgo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Pablo Hidalgo), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed the removal of "Johanna Larsson (disambiguation)." Might I ask why? There are two Johanna Larsson's on wikipedia and usually I would see some sort of disambiguation page to direct me to the correct one. Is it because there are only two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyunck(click) ( talk • contribs) 06:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
You declined the speedy deletion of Mercado de Campo de Ourique, saying:
I have to disagree with this rationale. The term market can refer to:
Clicking the link provided as the sole reference for this article, I find that the Mercado de Campo de Ourique appears to be a garden-variety supermarket, which does qualify for an A7 deletion. Further, the A7 deletion criterion refers to an article that "makes no credible assertion of notability". I.e., whether a topic may or may not be notable is not at issue; what is at issue is that the article has made no assertion of notability. However, as you have declined the speedy deletion, I will move the matter to AFD. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 20:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Why did you nominate the Main Page for deletion? Are you in control of your account at the moment? Patient Zero talk 12:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
:-), and thanks to Od Mishehu for actually knowing what to do and for taking the time to explain. Patient Zero talk 12:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I figured it must be a faulty script. As soon as I saw the main page, I knew that the first priority was to fix it (this, of course, required checking that it was the main page itself, not a transcluded page, where the template was located), second priority is to check if we need to be concerned about a compromized admin account; as soon as I opened your recent edits, I could tell it was a malfunctioning script. All otrher actions I was going to do (including looking at my talk page, which would otherwise be top priority) would be below these. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Enjoy your trout! :) Also, have you considered Template:Trout me for your user page? MM ('"HURRRR?) (Hmmmmm.) 02:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello. First let me say, I understand, why you had to delete the page, that's the rules of wikipedia. But I don't understand why you didn't inform me prior to the deletion! I came here today to copy most of the page and create an article about Collin Bowman in the German WP - and had to realize, everything has gone. I don't insist on restoring the page, but maybe you can somehow send me the article for named purpose? WLinsmayer ( talk) 19:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
My deepest apologies, I only now realized what happened (which is still very stupid of me, but I thought I'd provide an explanation): I clicked the wrong one. I meant to CSD under A7, non-notable individual (which hopefully at least makes sense; if you would've still declined it, please let me know). "Article claims coverage in reliable sources" is definitely not a good reason. Again, sorry about that! -- Nerd1a4i ( talk) 21:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
ping|SoWhy}}
and not copy
my signature. But there is no need to ping someone if you already use their talk page since they will automatically be notified anyway. But it's a good way to notify users when talking to/about them on other talk pages, hence Adam's and my use here. Regards
So
Why
08:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Please help me remove noindex meta. Thanks.-- Rohkum ( talk) 17:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
You added a CSD decline of WudStay Travels to your log, but I was the one who declined that. Did you try to decline it at the same time but I did it faster? Adam9007 ( talk) 20:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
If you click on "Kelsey Grammer" on that Trump endorsement article, you still go right to Grammer's Wikipedia article. In other words, I don't think your intended change to his link got through. Ch4ck it out, and educate me in what's aniss. I will read the article thanks. Lovecats1000 ( talk) 21:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Lovecats1000
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy User:Ron7905/sandbox/Ron Franklin - Drifter was undeleted so that it could be discussed at my RFA, I'm thinking it should probably be returned to the dumpster. You did the undelete, so I thought it best to ask your opinion rather than to delete it myself as some might think it a bit pointy. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 14:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey there, I saw you had declined the bot report for this IP. I wanted to let you know, that's a block evading IP, the edit filter is triggered by this user who has been spamming this NN person lately in various articles (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Randikasyap/Archive). RickinBaltimore ( talk) 15:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your review of my DYK nomination. The article has been corrected to conform with your suggestions, and I believe that your input regarding the hook is a fine improvement. But it doesn't appear any other reviewers have seized upon the opportunity to complete the (now) simple review process. The nomination seems stuck in a backwater eddy. Any suggestions? Gulbenk ( talk) 19:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I saw that at User talk:Mbcopeland you said that using IRC would be considered block evasion. Is that supported by any guideline, policy or precendent? To the best of my knowledge blocked editors are no more restricted from chatting in Wikipedia-related IRC channels (which are not run by the WMF) than from talking to their friends who also might be Wikipedians. There's even the #wikipedia-en-unblock channel which addresses unblock requests; I don't think ending up in the wrong channel (and others are far easier to find than -unblock) should be considered an aggravating circumstance. I also think there are plenty of reasons not to unblock Mbcopeland, but I'm not sure this is one of them. Huon ( talk) 00:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
If you guys don't mind me chipping in, it sounds like the matter of where IRC stands in terms of Block Evasion, could be the kind of thing where there isn't yet a clear consensus, and an RFC on this to establish some consensus could benefit the encyclopaedia. @ Slakr and Huon: and SoWhy, any opinion on this idea? MM ('"HURRRR?) (Hmmmmm.) 17:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I see you declined A7 on St. Paul's Lutheran Church (Ashland, KY) because "buildings are not eligible under A7" (which is correct), but are you saying that all churches are buildings, or just that article? I was once heavily criticised for "wasting time" for declining an A7 on an article about a church because "churches are organisations" (unfortunately, I can't remember which article it was, but I'm very sure what was what was said. I had declined for the same reason you declined this one.). There was a discussion about it a while ago, but there wasn't really a straight answer, just the usual "it depends". But most people I've come across consider churches to be organisations and thus are A7-eligible. I can certainly see how some might consider it an organisation (for example, how can a building be affiliated with anything?) I'd say the article is more about the building, but the issue remains as to which category churches (as a subject) fall under. I'd imagine most would say organisation, which would probably be taken to mean all articles about a church are A7-eligible. Given that, how is it possible to justify saying a church is a building? I'd imagine it's very difficult to talk about one without mentioning some sort of business. I actually can't help but wonder what would have happened had I declined that A7 (you'd probably remember the recent hoo-ha about tourist attractions, most of which are considered organisations rather than places, even if it's just because visitors have to pay for entry). Regards. Adam9007 ( talk) 21:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
You disobeyed an arbitration committee enforcement so I had to report you to wp:ani. 2602:306:3357:BA0:CC96:1326:B338:F16F ( talk) 04:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, regarding my declined RPP request about that page, I want to elaborate:
Special:History/Asaram - counting from 1 January 2017, (being generous i.e. counting multiple edits with just a single revert as one) there have been 13 reverts and not a single new user constructive edit. The only edit left is one by 30 Jan which was, by far, done by an experienced editor and the only change in that article besides mine. Compare those reverts with a month, and you get a rate of 2-3 per day approx.
I'll be quick to add that I don't intend to press this issue. The only thing that bothered me is my interpretation of PP being wrong. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 14:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi again.
I noticed a couple of things about this page: 1) Your CSD log says it was tagged for G11 by User:Houseonbluehill, but it wasn't, it was User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. 2) It appears to be copied from the article CriticalBlue. Is this a copyright violation? Adam9007 ( talk) 22:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your continued help with this. I had copied (I won't do that again!) the CriticalBlue page to my sandbox so that I could then make some proposed updates, I then put an edit request (due to COI) in the CriticalBlue talk page. I realise I have made a couple of mistakes along the way and now have warnings on my userspace - is this likely to impact my request for the update to be considered? I have tried to provide neutral references and the changes I have requested are to give a more accurate picture of the work the company does. Thanks.
Houseonbluehill ( talk) 13:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (2) and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks, ~ Rob13 Talk 17:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
yes
Jacktime34 (
talk)
01:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
...thank you for pointing me to the request for clarification. After reading the wording, and the replies of the arbitrators....I still see a certain amount of disgression for admins. The case in point at WP:RFP would have been adequately protected by semi, imho. And thanks for the heads-up. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar ( talk) 14:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey SoWhy I am a different person editor Jerrymistake. I am not same as person as Gracewan 2016 and Bradlay2016. Bradlay2016 is creating different Grace Wan. I am creaing Grace Yu Ye Wan. Grace Wan and Grace Yu Ye Wan both have same names, but its different person. In the world there were thousands of same name person can call "Grace" and lots of people can have first and last name is "Grace Wan." For example I heard lots of same common names is "Chris", "John", etc. but is different person. I am creating with articles and this articles talks about a real living person
Hello,
I see you declined my speedy delete / move request at Xseed Games. Obviously there's no particular harm in opening up a RM, but I disagree that this speedy criteria doesn't apply. The main criteria is if there is a non-trivial page history - there isn't - and if there was signs of a controversy / discussion. e.g. this shouldn't be done if there was any sort of argument or a previous RM. The original move was done without discussion, and three editors have signaled opposition since (and one person even tried to do a copy-and-paste move "back"). Now sure, maybe the move might be wrong, but then it's on them to open a RM - reverting moves made without discussion to the previous title doesn't usually qualify as "controversial", or, at least, no more controversial than the original move - they're just held up for technical reasons. To do otherwise privileges the "first mover". SnowFire ( talk) 23:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Template:PD-Highsmith has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Sfan00 IMG (
talk)
14:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).
Hi,
I saw your comments at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_February_22#Steve_Salis, and get the impression that you, like me, think G11 says the article itself must be promotional in tone, and irreparably? As you may have seen from the DRV, a lot of people seem to think that COI and/or paid editing alone constitutes blatant advertising and automatically qualifies the page for G11. I'm wondering if A reworking of G11 is in order. I'm talking about not only this, but other recent examples:
Fortrade. I couldn't see any blatant advertising here. Is it advertising? Maybe. But is it obvious? I don't see how. In the ensuring discussion on my talk page, the tagger seemed to think that sourcing counts towards an page's eligibility for G11.
Cavern Pub. Again, I couldn't see any blatant advertising. At worst, there were a couple of slightly spammy bits that could easily have been removed. As for the ensuring discussion, what can I say? It was despite the fact that another editor had previously proposed a merge, so obviously it wasn't obvious to him, or he'd have suggested deletion.
And the worst one - Abscription. I declined G11, because I cannot see any advertising of abscription or anything else here. Maybe it's my Asperger's but I just see a load of technical/scientific jargon, none of which I even vaguely understand. Even if I don't understand the subject, I do think I'd recognise "blatant advertising" if I see it. The tagger threw a wobbler and made personal attacks against me, threatening me with a topic ban: 1 2 3
I saw in your Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion that you say "blatant advertising" is statements like "Buy software XXX now!!!". I saw nothing like that in any of these articles. At these and the comments at AfD for Fortrade (where editors are calling me incompetent), it would seem that most people's definition of "blatant advertising" is much, much more lenient than "Buy software XXX now!!!". Wikipedia:Field_guide_to_proper_speedy_deletion#11._Blatant_promotion, although not a guideline, says "blatant spam" is not articles whose tone is merely questionable. It would seem that most people think that questionable tones do count as blatant advertising'. I'm not saying these articles were any good, but I don't believe they were at the level of "blatant advertising" as described by those two essays. Maybe G11 should be reworded to mean any Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING violations, even suspected ones? I thought I'd ask someone who knows what they are talking about rather than just suggesting such a thing, as it will probably be laughed at. Regards. Adam9007 ( talk) 03:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Dear SoWhy and friendly talk page stalkers,
I'll try to make my question as brief as possible:
I consider myself, primarily, as a user and onlooker, rather than as an editor or a wikipedian. Although interested, I do not have the time, nor the energy, to follow the development of different wikipedias. Time changes – often to the better – and suddenly the customs of yesteryear are outdated.
This winter, however, I've made a few attempts at sourcing articles in topics that I have read up on earlier in my life. My personal opinion is that quotes are good, as are source templates instead of "free text" references. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that quotes from sources in foreign languages ought to be avoided, unless translated. It may well be, that I sooner or later discover that the wikipedia community disagrees with me. Which I then have to take with equanimity.
Meanwhile, I ponder if links to publishers are, fundamentally, good or bad.
— I might expand on that, if necessary. But I believe that any experienced wikipedian would see at least a pair of advantages as well as disadvantages with
this solution, that in turn required the creation of a stub:
Natur & Kultur.
If so, what notability criterion ought to be met for publishers outside of the English speaking countries?
In the particular case of Natur & Kultur, I do not doubt its relevance, but somewhere a line has to be drawn.
Then there are author-links. The questions are the same, although slightly more sensitive, since authors may be still alive:
Best regards! / Johan M. Olofsson ( talk) 19:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy. I was going through RFPP and I noticed you semi'd User talk:DrStrauss for two weeks (as was requested). I am concerned however that there was not enough disruption to justify protecting the page. From looking at the history it appears that a single IP posted a number of messages and was blocked for making personal attacks. However, as DrStrauss is involved in anti-vandal work there have been a number of legitimate messages from editors asking for clarification, help, or pointing out a mistake DrStrauss had made. As most of these notes were from non autoconfirmed users and are not disruptive I am concerned we are being slightly heavy handed by protecting the talk page and preventing users with legitimate queries from posting. Clearly the IP making personal attacks was correctly blocked, but I wanted to ask if I am missing something else here that underpins why we protected the page? Best, Mifter ( talk) 21:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Colin Smythe is Pratchett's editor and has emailed the Committee. I'm convinced the username is legitimate and that he is Colin Smythe. I'd like to unblock him. He'll need to have COI issues, etc. explained to him of course. Doug Weller talk 17:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I was just wondering for further reference and so I do not make the same mistake with CSD G5 nominations, what constitutes a significant edit [by other editors]? If all of the actual article content is added by the blocked user- and then other editors clean things up, then these edits are significant? I guess a better question would be what is an insignificant edit? DJ Blue is what sparked this question. Thanks. JacobiJonesJr ( talk) 19:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
You declined the speedy deletion of Eden Wiggins stating "Decline speedy - starring in a notable series indicates significance". A single appearance in one episode as the young version of one of the series' characters hardly counts as a "starring" role. I'll take to AFD. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 16:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough on the declined speedy. I had tried to put the article up for WP:AFD, but the process broke down at step 2 when it loaded Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Salomon with its "no further edits" instruction. How do I get around that? Thanks in advance. Narky Blert ( talk) 17:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
May I ask what can be done to avoid the deletion of the pages I created which were the UN JPO Programme and JPO (Junior Professional Officer)?
Thank you.
Kind regards -- Intern315 ( talk) 21:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eden Wiggins (one of your A7 declines) - "frankly, the rejection of said A7 request was erroneous". Why can't they just accept your decline and move on? It seems I was mistaken in believing that admins are immune to this is the sort of stuff, as it's the sort of thing I keep having to deal with (for the record, I agree with the decline, there is a CCS and it cites a reliable source). No wonder I'm beginning to think our essays are too far outside consensus, whatever that is. After a comment like that, you could be forgiven for thinking it was one of my declines :). I'm frequently accused of wasting time, but the irony is that those who moan and argue with me about it waste more time in doing so. Adam9007 ( talk) 03:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion imho shows that there is still some problems with what consensus exists to treat different subjects when it comes to A7. As I have hopefully demonstrated above, WT:CSD and other noticeboards are full of discussions that are helpful in determining consensus. Thus I have started Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance as an analogue of WP:OUTCOMES and I'm inviting all interested talk page stalkers and other users to help me expand this into a collection of common claims that new page patrollers and patrolling admins alike can use to help them decide whether to tag/delete an article or not. The goal is to have references for all claims that point people to the relevant discussions about it. Feel free to add more references. Also, if you happen to find discussions where consensus was reached that a certain claim explicitly is not enough, feel free to create a new section and add that information there since it's helpful as well. Regards So Why 19:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
y-ep, that's right. Ygm. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 18:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
A clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 18:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Is there a way to find out what percentage of our CSDs are successful (beyond looking through our edit histories)? I founds some AfD info here, but my CSD noms don't seem to be logged. I enjoy sandwiches ( talk) 18:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I am curious to know your reasoning for not blocking User:Ohhfuckyeahahh who I reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. User:Widr has subsequently blocked him. Whilst I realise that Wikipedia is not censored I have never known profanities being allowed in usernames like this as per Wikipedia:Username_policy#Disruptive_or_offensive_usernames Theroadislong ( talk) 17:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Please put this news on Main page, the Party of current Dutch PM won the elections. 217.76.1.22 ( talk) 13:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. You indeffed the user for WP:NOTHERE for doing nothing here but using his user pages as if WP was a social networking site, so would you mind removing his talk page access too, for repeatedly adding an {{Infobox person}} to it, with photo and all, i.e. still using it as a Facebook page or whatever? (Semi-protecting his user pages might also be a good idea since he with all probably will continue adding the infobox using IPs...) - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there,
I hope this message finds you well! I am a musician starting to gain some traction online. I saw that you edited some information on the Amazons band Profile and wondered if I could get some advice from you?
A few of my fans have mentioned that they are going to set up a wiki page for me, this is great but obviously I don't know them personally. My only concern is keeping the content relevant and factually accurate. I of course have had various articles written about my music as I know back links are important to keeping the content relevant. Do you have any advice regarding this?
Would be great to hear back from you,
Many thanks, Oli -- Forthsix123 ( talk) 21:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, would you mind letting me know for future reference if Ufc210liveonline qualifies under A7 (events) and/or G11, due to WP:COI. Thanks in advance for your help! Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 20:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).
Thank you Sowhy for your help on building and fixing the Alan Abel (musician) page. I appreciate that so much, as this is the first page I have ever worked on. About the picture that I would like to put on the page, I already uploaded it. I just don't understand how to get it on the page. It is called Alan Abel of the Philadelphia Orchestra jpg. I own the photo and I give it free to all. If you can locate that photo and post it on the Alan Abel (musician) page I would be very grateful. Otherwise, if you will give me instructions, I will do it. Thank you again for your expertise! Brian Del Signore aka Ihavetantrums — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihavetantrums ( talk • contribs) 16:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello SoWhy,
Thank you for adding the picture to the Alan Abel page. I hope people will come now and add information to the page. The answer to your question about his birth date is as follows: December 6, 1928 is the correct date. You have two references that verify that date. The one that said 1930, is in my opinion, a guess by the author of that book at that time. I made a phone call today and spoke to Alan Abel's wife, She verified his birthday as December 6, 1928. Thank you so very much for helping me get this page started in a proper way! 2602:306:3133:C420:0:0:0:40 ( talk) 15:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Brian Del Signore aka Ihavetantrums
Thanks for your hard work patrolling CSD candidates. You denied CSD on Adapti.me so I moved it over to an AfD in case you want to follow it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adapti.me. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco ( talk) 07:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Do you want this guy to run RfA? He's had a previous one under his old account as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/APerson in September 2015 which ran the full 7 days, closing with straight fail of just under 65% support. Looking back, it does seem like a "not yet" rather than a "not ever" RfA, people suggested they'd be comfortable with a second one in due course. I'd have a read of Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/APerson#Discussion from question 7 and check with SilkTork and HJ Mitchell, who made good oppose votes last time, and see if they are comfortable first, to check there are no obvious unresolved problems. Then if all the standard AfD / CSD / civility / content checks work out, I don't see why we can't make a go of RfA #2. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello SoWhy, recently you made a decision on something I did. I just wanted to give you a friendly notice that I had a question on my talk page for you. Thank you. DeVonne ( talk) 13:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, this is to let you know that your latest message on GR'"s crat chat is truncated. Given that you have edited elsewhere since then, I'm not sure you noticed. Ideally the unsigned template I put in would ping you, but I'm not sure it does, since I'm not signing, so there... — Gamall Wednesday Ida ( t · c) 19:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Why was my page deleted and what do i need to do to get it back up
-- Jonny Vegas Namer ( talk) 19:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Jonny Vegas Namer 4/9/2017
That was an impressive post.
Fancy another tilt at RfB? -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 13:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd nominate you. If we're going to do this, it'll need to start in about a fortnight, as I won't be about much and think it's unfair to nominate and then bog off, leaving the nominee on their own, no matter how competent they are. I think your comments at BN just now were interesting timing - I'll go disagree with you there. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 14:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy. In a recent RfA someone linked to an essay that you wrote about why accuracy in CSD noms is important. Reading that changed my opinion on the importance of CSD noms when evaluating an admin candidate, so thanks for that. But, since I can't find it again, could you point me to it? Thanks! -- regentspark ( comment) 16:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing WP:ATD to my attention. Funnily enough, that escaped my reading and is a pretty solid and concise policy. A shove in the right direction is always greatly appreciated. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 00:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey SoWhy, I'm considering running for adminship sometime soon, but I'd love to know your opinion on whether or not I should because you're obviously versed in these matters, and are very thorough in your analysis. If you've got any spare time, would you be able to take a look at my suitability? Cheers, Anarchyte ( work | talk) 00:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Anarchyte: Okay, I had some time to review your contributions and I have some questions I like you to answer:
That's all for now but I will have a look at your other contributions later. Regards So Why 18:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on Z1 Radio? I came across it doing the 'patrolling' I mentioned/described on my talk page in (part of the) response to your message and was wondering if it should be nominated for CSD or not based on how it has links within the article (which itself is 4 sentences) with the only reference being the radio station's website and it is in the main namespace. Just thought I would ask before nominating and get your opinion on it. Thanks for your time! -- TheSandDoctor ( talk) 16:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
How can I delete my account? Albert raxx paco ( talk) 10:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Earlier today I restored an author-removed A7 on ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE which you then declined. It's since been deleted G5 but the question of whether a crammer should get the protection from A7 given to schools still bugs me. I've raised the question at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 - Are crammers protected? & I'd appreciate your views. Thanks, Cabayi ( talk) 09:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I had to decline your Prod on On Wah Chang due to an objection on the talk page. But this looks like a solid candidate for AfD if you want to send it along. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
On 22 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alan Abel (musician), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alan Abel served as a percussionist for the Philadelphia Orchestra for 38 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alan Abel (musician). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Alan Abel (musician)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I think you should consider your decision here:
The company called UniSoft Infotech Corporation is probably a confusion with an Indian company with a similar name " Unisoft Infotech" that has no relationship to the company described by the article UniSoft. The original move from Unisoft to UniSoft Infotech Corporation was a mistake. It is misleading to keep the redirect in place.
There are no links in article space to UniSoft Infotech Corporation so can you either overturn you decision and delete the redirect or agree to let me delete it. -- PBS ( talk) 14:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Good morning from Calabria, I'm writing to say hello to you and know how you are, I'm fine for now, working between fields and on Wikipedia. I am writing to ask you a courtesy, always if you go, and always and in any case returning your courtesy. Please could you give a small translation help regarding these biographies? Right and no more than 5 to 15 minutes of your precious time, maybe I'm asking too much, but I hope you can do something for me. I will be available to you within my limits, for the rest I thank you in advance for what you will do for me. A greeting from Calabria-- Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino ( talk) 14:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Good morning from Calabria, dear Alessandro. I am writing to thank you very much for what you did for me, I hope all right there for you. I'm pretty good, I apologize if I did not answer you right away, but I often have to do with my father who is sick for a month because he fell and hurt two ribs and two vertebrae, being a single male child and Home, they touch me some tasks. I would like to return courtesy, if you are interested in an article you would like to see translated into Italian and its dialect variants, I am at your complete disposal. A fraternal greeting from Coreca, soon!-- Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino ( talk) 12:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
... by your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Oppose (Modify); you say that you strongly disagree with me but then seem (to me at least) to make the exact same argument as me. I'm guessing that I haven't expressed myself very well there, so in the interests of improving my communication skills, can I just check what you think I was saying? I don't think I contradicted the lines of policy you quoted (or at any rate, I certainly didn't intend to), but if you believe I did, I've obviously failed to make myself clear! Thanks in advance, Yunshui 雲 水 10:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Ouch and thanks in equal measure. I could argue the point over some of the CSDs but an RfA isn't the place where they can successfully be argued.
The large figures for the use of AWB mostly date back to work on WP:SBS in 2008/9 & 2011 and work on removing myspace links in 2015 - if they're skewing my figures still, it's probable that they always will. I'd need to edit heavily for another 10 years before the proportion of AWB edits would shrink to a "normal" level.
Your point about promotional intent vs promotional words did ring true. I don't think I'll ever get over that hurdle - I've commented to several spammers that I, along with the other volunteers, am here to contribute to an encyclopedia, not to act as an unpaid copywriter for their company's advertising. I don't see my view on that changing.
Anyhow, as much as it hurts, thanks for the honesty. Cabayi ( talk) 13:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)