User talk:Jreferee/Archive 14

Crash(band) deletion

My article about the band Crash from Collegeville, PA was deleted today, but can i get back a copy of the article I wrote? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echoes4258 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their vs. their

Wrt to your question here, I did a quick google books search and found e.g. The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther by Donald K. McKim who spells it with capital T. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 23:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, many others use the minuscule t. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 23:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of N4G

An editor has asked for a deletion review of N4G. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The NeveR SLeePiNG 23:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks!

Thanks for your participation for my RFA bid and for your support.--JForget 23:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terichem - wikipedia

Hello, why you delete our Wikipedia website. Please help us, how we have to optimalised our wiki web site about Terichem which will verify your rules. Thanks a lot. Andrej Timkovic - IT - Terichem a.s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timkovic (talk • contribs) 07:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons that Terichem was deleted are listed here. If you disagree with the deletions, please follow the steps to list a new deletion review. Thanks. -- Jreferee T/C 07:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

INVOLVE (UK National Advisory group)

Hi - I still find it difficult to understand what is wrong with what I posted - this is a non profit organisation - the description of the organisation had been re-written to try and fix the fact that it was thought to be copyright. I have the organisations permission to add this article - let me know if you need anything in writing from them. If it is the links that are at fault I can remove them. I was in the middle of adding wiki links to the article. As the article is to encourage the public to review, discuss and join in research in health care we thought this would of been an ideal opportunity to list the information with Wikipedia. Please advise exactly were I have gone wrong. Maddcat007 09:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Zoiper article

Zoiper is the second most popular SIP softphone and Wikipedia contains tons of articles about much less popular applications that actually perform the same job but with less functionalities, like the ones listed in:

Do you have experience with VoIP telephony, particularly VoIP software? Why do administrators delete my article on different grounds every time? If there were no other articles about softphone applications in Wikipedia, I would've considered "No reasonable assertion of importance/significance" as logical. Now I see it as prejudice and harassment towards my article particularly. Please reconsider your speedy deletion. I see no reason why a respected online encyclopedia should not display an article about a respected software in the Internet telephony world. Thank you! -- Miranda George 15:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zoiper does not appear popular enough for any relialbe sources (e.g., newspapers or books) to spend their money publishing information about Zoiper. Wikipedia's original research policy essentially makes any personal experience with VoIP software useless when developing a Wikipedia article on the topic. Wikipedia articles should be based on material in reliable sources that are independent of the subject so that an attributable article may be written on the topic. See General notability guideline. People typically use information from newspaper articles and books for their Wikipedia article. Material published by Zoiper or published under Zoiper's control is not independent of Zoiper. Try building a draft article in your userspace at Zoiper(draft) using information from newspaper articles, books, etc. Once you feel that you have an article that meets Wikipedia's five article standards requirements, follow the steps to list a new deletion review and request that the Zoiper be restored using your draft article as the material for the Zoiper Wikipedia article. Best wishes. -- Jreferee T/C 16:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Preckwinkle

Since it seems you are in favor of relisting, your voice is welcome at WP:DRV.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Toni Preckwinkle is going to head towards endorsed closure with permission to recreate. Is it possible that you could userfy her page at User talk:TonyTheTiger/Toni Preckwinkle to make it easier to recreate. I fully understand that I have to properly create a page that passes WP:RS, WP:ATT, WP:V.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought I would call your attention to the WP:CO going on for Toni Preckwinkle. It is this week's WP:CHICOTW.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet! Keep up the good work. -- Jreferee t/c 17:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User Talk:Jimmi Hugh

You recently Denied a "Request to speedy delete" my User Talk Page. Where was such a request made? -- Jimmi Hugh 17:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy delete request showed up at Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion, but on looking at your talk page I was unable to find such a request. It might be something screwy with the software. Hopefully, no harm was done. -- Jreferee T/C 17:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything on my Talk Page or even find the listing on the Candidates Page. If i do notice anything, i'll let you know. And, no harm was done, so no worries. -- Jimmi Hugh 18:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Steven Cook

I believe you deleted that entry despite my tagging it with "hang on" and starting a discussion on the talk page pointing out the basis of my concerns about the nomination. This has been reversed and we are carrying on the discussion about resolving this issue on the talk page. I thought I'd drop you a note to see if you had any input on this. Cheers. (Emperor 23:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Deletion of Richard Archer

Hi Jreferee, I'd just like to question why you didn't delete the page when it was under the namespace of "Richard John Archer"? Perhaps I should ask why it wasn't deleted. Hope to hear from you soon with regards to this. Qwerty (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both Richard Archer and Richard John Archer have been deleted. I don't recall coming across the Richard Archer page when it was under the namespace of "Richard John Archer", which is why I didn't delete the Richard John Archer article. I came across Richard John Archer when it was a redirect to a deleted article, so I deleted the Richard John Archer redirect under CSD R1. -- Jreferee T/C 15:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Qwerty (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Elementary School - Restored

Thank you for your help! Seedvp 15:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Gabriela[reply]

Metrophage

Hello, why did you delete the "Metrophage" article? There was no copyright infringement; 'voidspace.org' does not own the novel's copyright, and even if it did, that would not keep people from writing encyclopedia articles about the novel. As far as I know, Kadrey made his book available for public use -that means that we are free to do anything that we want to do with the novel, as long as we don't try to make money out of the it.--Alperkaan 17:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted per WP:CSD#A7 since the article lacked assertion of importance/significance about the book. Even if the article were restored, there is not enough reliable source material that isindependent of Metrophage to develop an attributable article. The deleted article also had original research problems. -- Jreferee T/C 07:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion needed

I thank you for your support on Toni Preckwinkle. It looks like people will be supportive of a recreation. I notice in your last post on my talk page that you support well referenced editorial contributions. I need an opinion. I have been debating with another interested editor on the need for references at Gilbert Perreault. He has been removing my references and huffing about WP:OWN when I fight back. I have tried to compromise. We have taken it to talk at WP:HOCKEY and WP:WPBIO. Neither place responded. We are now at WP:PR and thus far have only one response. Since you are concerned about referencing, I was hopeful you would respond at Wikipedia:Peer review/Gilbert Perreault/archive1 with your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my summary at Talk:Gilbert Perreault will help you to help us.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My speedy bender

Hi, thanks for your message. Sorry about being a bit overzealous, obviously I was a bit unclear on the distinction between speedy/prod/afd and wasn't sure when each applied. Your message helped clear that up for me a lot. I see you have handled many of my speedys by changing them to prods, I will try to look over whatever you haven't touch and try to revert any big mistakes before I ruffle any feathers. Thanks for your help, I apologize again! Steve Carlson^Talk 20:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK history

Hi - I notice you haven't made much progress on verifying the entries at Wikipedia:Recent additions 146/History. I was going to drop by and ask if you're ready for another one, and mention that at the rate of one a week it would take 3 or 4 years to get through all of these (and, at one a month, dozens of years). I could generate them all and tag it as a backlog. Do you have any thoughts on this? -- Rick Block (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of COMINT metadata and Electronic Order of Battle

hello. following your decision at these articles' del-rev i'd like to know what should be done in order to make these articles legit, in you opinion. since i do believe that they are notable and should exist, i'd like your guidance. please respond to my talk page. many thanks, Comint 07:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Develop draft articles on each topic in your user space only using material from reliable sources that are independent of either topic. Once that is done, return to WP:DRV and request that the articles be restored using your draft articles as the content for those articles. -- Jreferee T/C 07:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron

Greetings, I'm just double checking, you added Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics to the Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron and it is now showing up in the "to be rescued" category. Was this intentional? Fosnez 10:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In addition, I put a space before "Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron" in the category listing on the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron page to have Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron sorted to be listed first on the cagegory page. Not sure why it is not sorting that way. -- Jreferee T/C 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Controversies about functioning labels in the autism spectrum.

I need some time to study it; can you wait a day? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for waiting; I just can't even *think* about another autism-related article right now, but I should be refreshed and renewed by tomorrow. Basically, though, I will probably defer to Eubulides, since he probably has a vision for how to make that walled garden of articles work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... got your message that you wanted more input on this, and spent an hour composing a response, but the article was already deleted by then. In my opinion it was a fairly poor article about a topic which deserves coverage, so, moot point though it is now, I'm unenthused about the outcome. Poindexter Propellerhead 18:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about autism or the autistic community - the only reason I have so many edits to the AS article is that I have been watching it for two years. I would've voted delete or merge back to autism rights movement for now as what was there was just original research. Graham87 00:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your actions

I notice that you have deleted sub-pages concerning Michelle Bachman when the consensus on the page asking if they should be deleted was that they should be kept. Please explain to me why you did this. If you tally up the votes by individual editors they are in favor of keep, User:Dhartung made several seperate entrys arguing for delete but he still only gets one vote. Please explain your actions. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michele_Bachmann,_EdWatch,_and_MFI Voting tally:

User:cab - Weak keep

User:Pugnacious - Extremely strong keep

User:Wowaconia - Strong Keep

User:BlindEagle - Keep

User:Dhartung - Delete

User:DGG - Delete

User:Carlossuarez46 - Delete

--Wowaconia 19:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote. While AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. -- Jreferee T/C 05:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rush

Hey Jreferee, as we discussed previously, I nominated the article for deletion, and it can be found here. Unfortunately, I listed it late at night (or early in the morning), and it seems to have slipped through unnoticed. If you could re-list it, or tell me how to (or point me in the right direction to learn the process), I would be much obliged. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 03:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you got it all. There is an AfD note on the AfD'ed article, there is an AfD page, and that AfD page was transcluded. -- -Jreferee T/C 05:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grateful for your comment

As indicated to others involved in the AFD process, I appreciate you taking the time to evaluate the case I made on behalf of the MediaZone article. In no way was I attempting to bypass or ignore Wikipedia standards. If there are suggestions you could provide regarding re-creation, I would be grateful for the insight and advice. I have great appreciation for the site, its editors and administrators. I will accept whatever decision is rendered with respect and professionalism. JohnRobertCrowley 16:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the comments on my User Talk page. Will apply your knowledge and direction to a draft article. JohnRobertCrowley 17:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete of SpiralScouts stub

I'm the article creator. I was discussing with a coworker the existence of non-christian and athiest versions of boyscouts, and saw that there seems to be very little about them in wikipedia, although they pop up in the news every once and a while. SpiralScouts is one of the more interesting ones, and is reasonably popular, so I stuck up a stub and some links in scouting list pages with the hope that people with more knowledge might contribute. Sort of the point of an online reference anybody can edit. How do you propose a stub page establish the significance of its subject? Do you think it seems a little arbitrary for a single admin to decide its significance? I have no interest in SpiralScouts beyond a mocking conversation I once had with a coworker looking for some after-school activities for his son. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tafinucane (talk • contribs) 20:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing in the SpiralScouts article that stated why SpiralScouts was important or significant. -- Jreferee T/C 21:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so you go ahead and add some. The subject easily meets notability guidelines (WP:ORG), although I made no effort to make the case on the stub. I didn't use a stub template because I couldn't find one for organizations, I believe. Why are the deletion criteria so much stricter than the notability guidelines? Seems if every admin were as vigilant as you, no new articles could ever be created. Thanks for your volunteer efforts, btw. Dealing with whiners can't be too pleasant. Tafinucane 21:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a search and found SpiralScouts International. It appears to have been around for a while. -- Jreferee T/C 23:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost


Volume 3, Issue 39	24 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Survey results
Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco	WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram"
News and notes: Times archives, conferences, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View

Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willesee

A page I created was deleted - it was about William Francis Willesee and I created it to add to a Willesee family page which I created under the category Political Families of Australia. Is their any point continuing to add information to Wikipedia if it just disappears? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltonraja (talk • contribs) 07:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Francis Willesee was deleted since the article did not contain any reasonable assertion of importance/significance per CSD A7. See this. Also, even if the topic met CSD A7, Wikipedia articles are not Genealogical entries and it may be deleted on that ground. See WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. -- Jreferee t/c 14:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your link to 'this' is for administrators only. How does it make sense to have a category called "Political Families of Australia" with the message "It has been requested that this category be populated." and then to delete entries which are examples of political families of Australia? It isn't genealogy - the only people mentioned were Australian politicians, not their wives or parents or cousins - the purpose is to create a record of those families that have been influential in Australian politics. If you don't like the topic delete the category page that asks for contributions. -- 220.235.18.93 (talk · contribs · logs) 13:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the 'this' link above. The requested that the category be populated inherently includes a request that it be populated by articles that meet Wikipedia's article standards. I listed for deletion those articles that I thought did not meet Wikipedia's article standards. -- Jreferee t/c 14:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I give up. When I read on a blog that entries were called for Political Families of Australia - and given that I have an awful lot of information on Western Australian politics - I went to Wikipedia to start adding the info. I spent 90 minutes clicking around on Help screens trying to find some logical instructions about adding info. I didn't find it so I just started in. Basically I thought Categories must be something like Subject Headings in a library catalogue (ie they don't in themselves contain the information, but they point to it) and that I didn't need to add any information to all that was already in wikipedia on those people, just link them up to the Category 'Political Families of Australia' so that people looking for exactly that topic would find all the families and then click through to the more detailed individual biography pages. So some of the pages I created had very little biographical info - but as you can see, where there was very little or none eg William Francis Willesee, I added some more. The rules of Wikipedia are clearly beyond my comprehension, so, sorry to have taken up your time, and please just delete the stuff I put on. At least it's given me an idea for my own organisation's intranet - I'll put up the information there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.215.218 (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up: contested prod

Stereotypez

How the fuck is any other album more important? Just cuz you ain't heard of the guys doesn't shit. It ain't hurtin' nothin'. --PDTantisocial 10:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ScanAndHost

Why did you delete the ScanAndHost page?--Bstevens760 17:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article because it did not meet CSD A7 - "No assertion of importance/significance. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not state why its subject is important or significant." I just did a search and could not find any newspaper coverage of ScanAndHost. Do you know of any reliable sources independent of ScanAndHost that have written about ScanAndHost? -- Jreferee t/c 17:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Within one week there will be two different newspaper articles in two different publications.--Bstevens760 18:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Careers Group, University of London

Hello Jreferee. A page I created yesterday has been deleted on the basis on being "blatant advertising". Could you give me a little more detail as to the exact reasons please? I've read all the guidelines about advertising and fail to see how the article is. Perhaps some sections could merely be cut out but the article as a whole in no way amounts to advertising. The Careers Group, University of London is a not-for-profit organisation notable for its long history and unique governance structure which answers to the UoL as a whole in the same way as UoL Research Library and the University of London Union. Both of these organisations have pages on Wikipedia without any problems. Furthermore, I have seen what else (in the world of Careers Guidance) is on here and cannot see any difference between what I've written and what is written, without dispute, about Graduate Prospects. I hope to hear from you soon. Thanks. (Norman Cat 09:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Re:Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron efforts

Hi Fosnez. I read the talk page thread about whether the Article Rescue Squadron actually does anything. We really need to keep track of this to encourage others to join and actively participate. . You should start a sub page to keep track of the Article Rescue Squadron's efforts. Basically, I envision a table with headings such as article name, AfD link, date added to Article Rescue Squadron category, diffs showing contributions by the Article Rescue Squadron, date removed from Article Rescue Squadron category. -- Jreferee t/c 04:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, firstly I would like to "officially" welcome you to the Article Rescue Squadon! I definatly agree that we need to have a better examples section, the one at the bottome of the project pages doesn't really "sell" the project that well. I am busy marking assignments at the moment, and probably will be all weekend, but I'll see what I can do when I am at "work" on Monday. Fosnez 12:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Careers Group, University of London- Thanks

Jreferee- Thank you for reconsidering the article. I have already removed the Users section and will be sure to make the other suggested changes as soon as I have a chance. Any other comments in the meantime are most welcome. Thanks! (Norman Cat 15:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

ARS Admin section

Greetings, I just wanted to check, is this section of the members list for Administrators only or for people that do Admin work for the ARS (like me?) Fosnez 02:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators only, but if you want to get rid of that section, that's fine. It was based on what they do at DYK. -- Jreferee t/c 02:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikirage Enhancements

J, I found some time to work on Wikirage wikirage. I added a home page indication and mashed in the WikiCharts data. I've also started capturing flags like 'Unverified', 'Cleanup Needed', and 'Disputed'. I'll try to get some velocity data in soon. If there are other 'flags' that I should be on the look out for, let me know.w3ace 03:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK history anomalies

Sylvia Seegrist is listed twice on the Wikipedia:Recent additions 146/History list. Glitch in the software? -- Jreferee t/c 21:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list in the table is parsed from the archive file, one row per DYK in the archive. There are two entries in the archive for Sylvia Seegrist, so two entries in the table.
For some reason, the bot is not picking up Smee's nomination credits. -- Jreferee t/c 22:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smee deletes (without archiving) the credits. The tool is only looking at current versions of talks (and archives).
The bot failed to locate this nom post for the Sports in Karnataka entry. -- Jreferee t/c 00:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this before. The nom used underscores rather than spaces. I don't think this will come up very often. If we see it again, I'll look into fixing it.
The bot missed this nom post for Bombings of Switzerland in World War II. They may have changed the article name from Bombing of Zurich in World War II to Bombings of Switzerland in World War II after the nom and before it appeared on the Main Page. -- Jreferee t/c 01:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. The article was apparently renamed between the original nom and when the DYK appeared. Again, if this comes up a lot I could look into fixing it.
I located a missed credit and made it here. -- Jreferee t/c 01:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So all this effort is apparently not totally worthless ;).

I've created Wikipedia:Recent additions 147/History, but don't think we want to go whole hog yet. There's an obvious glitch involving Salvem el món. I'll track down what this problem is (likely not until at least tomorrow). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK update

The DYK postings are 3 hours overdue. Can you help? --EncycloPetey 14:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

The Wikipedia Signpost


Volume 3, Issue 40	1 October 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"	News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View

Shortcut : WP:POST

Automatically delivered by COBot 02:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Many thanks for your explanations, B —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenHeine (talk • contribs) 00:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Heine

BEN HEINE SPEAKING: MAY I ASK WHY YOU PARTICIPATED IN MY WIKIPEDIA's ENTRY DELETION WITH KARL MEIER AND OFFICE GIRL? THIS IS NOT FAIR! THE ENTRY HAD BEEN WRITTEN AGAIN AND RE DOWNLOADED BY OTHER PEOPLE AND YOU STILL KEEP DELETING IT. WHO ARE YOU? CONTACT ME HERE : [email protected] -- Ben Heine —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenHeine (talk • contribs) 22:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

I hit stop (on my browser) right after I hit delete, I hadn't even realized I had clicked on the link to that page. Then I checked it a minute later, and everything seemed fine. Oh well. I'm working on restoring it now. Thanks. CitiCat^♫ 01:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretend Genius

This article was {{prod}}-ed by you, the 5 days expired and I deleted it. A user has requested restoration, which as a prod I did but sent it to AFD because I agree with why you prod-ed it. Because of the deletion it may no longer be on your radar screen (watch list) so I am informing you of the matter. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 01:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Ronald_A._Carson

Hi Jreferee. Thanks for the heads up on the above DRV. Not counting mutliple socks there appears to be slim support for reinstatement. I'm not contributing to the discussion, not out of discourtesy, but because reading the arguments of other editors I'd have nothing further to add. Best Wishes. Pedro : Chat 07:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid Prime

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Metroid Prime (creature). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Will ^(talk) 10:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:THsignedpic.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:THsignedpic.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rette tast 18:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NCCC accomplishments

Could I ask you to place a copy of the deleted article NCCC accomplishments in my following user page User:Dbiel/ScratchPad/NCCC accomplishments so I can attempt to salvage limited parts from it? Thank you for your assistance Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second request Dbiel ^(Talk) 14:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance and for the alternate link. Dbiel ^(Talk) 18:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK history tool

Hi - I did see your latest round of comments (from a few days ago), but haven't had a chance to work on the tool yet. I think I'll be able to get to it this weekend. Just thought I'd let you know I got your message. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to address the concerns listed in Cracked.com's article

We do not base our content descisions on the jottings of random humorists.Geni 05:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

open primary

It appears there are different definitions of "open primary." You don't have to declare your party in New Hampshire to vote in a party primary - you can be registered as undeclared and vote in either primary. You do not have to be a registered Republican to vote in the Republcian primary, etc. That's the definition of "open primary" in this state. However, our article open primary says "Also a member of one party can vote in the primary of another party", which is not the case here - so by that definition we're not open. - DavidWBrooks 15:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification

In the past I've had people get my page deleted and then send me a notice. Thoughtman 20:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5

The Biography WikiProject Newsletter
Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007

Project News

The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way.
A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details.

Member News

Congratulations to the editors who worked on the newest featured biographies: Augustus; William Shakespeare; Adriaen van der Donck; Alfred Russel Wallace; Alison Krauss; Anne Frank; Anne of Denmark; Asser; Bart King; Bill O'Reilly; Bobby Robson; Bradley Joseph; CM Punk; Ceawlin of Wessex; Colley Cibber; Cædwalla of Wessex; Dominik Hašek; Elizabeth Needham; Frank Macfarlane Burnet; Georg Cantor; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gunnhild Mother of Kings; Gwen Stefani; Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery; Harriet Arbuthnot; Harry S. Truman; Henry, Bishop of Uppsala; Héctor Lavoe; Ine of Wessex; Ion Heliade Rădulescu; Jack Sheppard; Jackie Chan; Jay Chou; John Martin Scripps; John Mayer; Joseph Francis Shea; Joshua A. Norton; Kate Bush; Kazi Nazrul Islam; Kevin Pietersen; Martin Brodeur; Mary Martha Sherwood; Mary of Teck; Maximus the Confessor; Miranda Otto; Muhammad Ali Jinnah; P. K. van der Byl; Penda of Mercia; Pham Ngoc Thao; Rabindranath Tagore; Ramón Emeterio Betances; Red Barn Murder; Richard Hakluyt; Richard Hawes; Robert Garran; Roman Vishniac; Ronald Niel Stuart; Ronald Reagan; Roy Welensky; Rudolph Cartier; Samuel Adams; Samuel Beckett; Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough; Sarah Trimmer; Sargon of Akkad; Shen Kuo; Sophie Blanchard; Stereolab; Sydney Newman; Sylvanus Morley; Tim Duncan; Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft; Uncle Tupelo; Waisale Serevi; Wallis, Duchess of Windsor; Walter Model; William Bruce; William Goebel; Yagan; Zhou Tong; Æthelbald of Mercia; Æthelbald of Mercia

New Members

Congratulations to our 225 new members

From the Editors

The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below)

We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future.

This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page

New irc channel

Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network:

#wikipedia-en-bio

Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up.

Contributors to this Issue

Psychless (talk · contribs)
Phoenix 15 (talk · contribs)

Complete To Do List

Write an article
Expand an article about:

Improve an article by:

Review an article

Romano Volta •

Suzanne Carrell • Mullá Husayn • John Gilchrist (linguist) • Thomas Brattle •

Answer requests for comments
Work on the Portal

Portal:Biography

Assess an article

Assessment Progress

Biography articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
Quality	Core	Other	???	Total
FA	35	1,633		1,668
FL		204		204
A	1	131		132
GA	41	8,364		8,405
B	97	40,212		40,309
C	33	168,401		168,434
Start	2	762,519		762,521
Stub	1	1,033,165	1	1,033,167
List		8,144		8,144
Category	2	346,196		346,198
Disambig		8,116		8,116
File		31,980		31,980
Project		215		215
Redirect	3	45,562		45,565
Template		20,692		20,692
NA		894		894
Assessed	215	2,476,428	1	2,476,644
Unassessed		24,398		24,398
Total	215	2,500,826	1	2,501,042
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 10,822,668			Ω = 5.37

We couldn't do it without you!

To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .[reply]

HELP

Jreferee - I've followed some of your administrative decisions and you seem like a fair administrator who can get things done so I need ask for your help in restoring a page that I strongly feel should not have been deleted: Heller Ehrman. It was written in an objective tone, was encyclopedic and was in-line with the style/type/tone used by the other 160 pages dedicated to law firms listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Law_firms_of_the_United_States Until this morning, the page was a part of this category and a few different users had contributed to it in some form or fasion.

Moreover, the page contained a considerably informative history of the firm which chronicled its relation to the other institutions that were intergral to California's history from the time of the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 until present day. This took quite a few days and a lot of effort to compile and after having reviewed the list of what wikipedia is and what it is not, I believe the page was deleted in error.

Is it within your ability as an admin to restore pages that have been recently deleted? If not, may I and others recreate the page for your/other admin review?

Please respond to my talk page. Thank you for your time.

Burning Sands Burning Sands 17:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: When you wish upon a Wienstein

Out of curiosity, why did you call upon me to fix this? -- John Reaves 19:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I'm still figuring out how the whole thing works here. I was able to locate the admin who took down the page in the first place and he/she told me what the specific problems were and that I could rewrite it with those things in mind so the long and short of it is that the problem solved.

I was looking for any admin when I should have been looking for the admin who deleted the page. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks anyway.

Burning Sands 20:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Chris Benoit

I doubt that if he does, his account is Crippler4 (talk · contribs), if it is him, I'd suspect it to be Multiplebraininjuries (talk · contribs), judging by the edit summaries used in the history of the Chris Benoit article. Bmg916^Speak 14:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Generals Revolt

"it was a very short article with little or no context for the statements made." Then why didn't you add more too it? BTW wasn't a vote on David Ashe? Thoughtman 19:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Generals Revolt article did not meet Wikipedia's requirements, so I deleted it. I thought it should be deleted, so I did not add more to it. If you think more reliable source material could be added to The Generals Revolt, please feel free to follow the steps to list a new deletion review. The !Vote for David Ashe was delete. See AfD#2. -- Jreferee t/c 19:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Are you systematically checking every edit I've ever made? Thoughtman 19:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were polite in this post, so I thought that I would spend some time giving you clarification of other's deletions of your posts. -- Jreferee t/c 19:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message misplaced?

*:::It may be considered disruptive to the deletion discussion and you may be blocked to permit that discussion to continue without disruption. -- Jreferee t/c 03:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[1][reply]

User:Edgarde just Cut & Pasted this message on my Talk page. He claimed that you sent it to him when it was intended for me. True? --Ludvikus

Thanks!

Thanks for userfying my deleted page for me. I'm terribly new here, and floundering a bit. I hated the thought that I may have totally lost what I'd done so far and appreciate having access to it so that I can make it Wikipedia-worthy. Still on the learning curve! Kathycha 03:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Barnes

I hope to have a response regarding oversight tonight. Once the mess has disappeared I think we can test the waters with semi-protection and see what happens. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring Feast of Fools (podcast)!

Thank you, Jreferee, for restoring the content of this page to my account. I am working on it quite feverishly and I think it's coming along nicely. This is the first major writing project I've done on Wikipedia, so any guidance and/or input would be most greatly appreciated! I hope to have everything ready by the end of the week. Thanks again! RcktManChgo 09:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Explorer

Why was the article that I created and had deleted reinstated. I only wrote that to advertise for the company. [email protected]. 00:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prods

I noticed you regularly included the following comment in your prods

Removal of this PROD notice without making the requested improvements may make it more likely that this article will bedeleted at Articles for deletion

I think you should reconsider adding those comments. They're a bit misleading (an article that is prodded just may survive an AFD as is) and they don't really help much. It sort of implies that your judgement is spot-on perfect and that when you decide an article should be deleted, it will be. That certainly isn't your intention, but that's the impression it gives. That's just my two cents. --UsaSatsui 03:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Social

Hi there,

I have removed the proposed deletion tag from Social. The article certainly may have some problems, but it's a topic that we should have something on, and I'm not comfortable with the deletion of an article with four years of history from numerous editors without it going through a proper AfD debate. --Stormie 04:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Quantum consciousness and ion channels (copied from here)

Could you explain the reason for deleting Quantum Consciousness and Ion Channels. Persephone19 16:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was clear in that the article was original research. Pete.Hurd's discussion about how the cited references did not support the text was persuasive. You even agreed that expansion of Quantum mind may be the best answer. I would be happy to post a copy of the article into your user space. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience and/or User:Christopher Thomas may be interested in the topic. If you enter "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience" at Wikipedia stats, you can get a list of others who may be interested in the topic. I would suggest contacting some of them directly on their talk page in addition to posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience. In addition, you may follow the Steps to list a new deletion review to challenge my delete close of the article. -- Jreferee t/c 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would reiterate that the claim of original research is false. Wikipedia guidance refers to unpublished facts etc. I have given a list of references and in particular the references for the main proponents of the theory. There was a mistake in typing a long list of references relative to one of the less important papers, but this was still a published paper, and it is impossible to see how this would allow one to say that the list as a whole did not support the text. You speak of consensus but the guidance says that this is not a vote but based on arguments. Apart from Peter Hurd's comments about the references, there were no arguments merely misapplication of isolated terms taken from guidance or outright falsities such as 'its a hoax.' The assumption that this is pseudoscience is also wrong as this refers to theories that cannot be falsified, whereas the prediction of coherence in the ion channels is quite capable of being falsified. Persephone19 18:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you don't reply, I take it you accept the falsity of your claim of original research. Persephone19 19:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Feast of Fools (podcast)

Thanks for your note today. I am going to make some last-minute tweaks tonight; hopefully it should be ready for loading by Friday morning. I'll keep you posted. THANK YOU for all your help and guidance! RcktManChgo 18:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Student suicides

Hi Jreferee, and thanks for your note to me. As one of many AfDs that I closed over a year ago, I have to admit that my memory is quite spotty. However, looking at this particular AfD, I do vaguely remember it and that I took quite some time reading all the arguments very carefully before coming to a decision. I, of course, stand by my decision regarding that AfD and would delete it again given the same information. However, the user subpage follows slightly different rules from pages in the main articlespace. Also, my decision has nothing to do with the subject matter, but with the opinions expressed in the AfD, so my familiarity with the subject matter probably has no bearing on what we do with this article, other than to note that the two articles are different and therefore isn't a re-creation of previously-deleted content.

This could be a work in progress. User pages are given some latitude and flexibility because they don't reside in the main articlespace and therefore are not readily available to the "viewing public". As long as the user is still working on this article and is trying to get it to a decent enough quality before putting it into the main articlespace, this article may deserve to be kept. However, I do note, as you probably do, that this article hasn't been worked on since June.

There are a couple of things you could do:

Send a talk message to Wl219 asking if the article is still being worked on.
Open an MfD to get the article deleted.

Given that the article has been inactive for almost six months, I'd go with the latter, but at the very least, a courtesy talk message to the author is warranted. Hope this helps, Deathphoenix ʕ 18:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that there's a time limit on inactivity in user subpage works in progress, as this is. I have several such articles in progress as you can see on my main user page and I unfortunately do not have time to work on all of them at the same time. As for the merits of the article, I solicited (but have so far received none) comments here intending it as a fork of List of suicides (which I notice is being kept for now as the AfD was "no consensus"). My list is fundamentally different from the deleted Ivy League list since the intersection of suicide and college campuses is a well-documented phenomenon (as evident by the sources I cite for each name without its own WP article). Further, since it is a subpage work in progress, it falls under WP:UP#SUB and isn't subject to the usual rigors of WP:N and whatnot. Anyway, I invite you to assist me in continuing to compile sourceable information on the subject. Wl219 22:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

You try to make me go to Rehab, but I say no, no, no... I like having that little tag on my page. It allows me the freedom to say things I wouldn't be able to say if I were jonesing for an adminship (which means that, if you nommed me, my dirty little incivilities would sink my candidacy). Thanks for the offer, but I'll keep making the requests. Besides, I have a job now (first day today), so it will likely cut into my time here. I've only been writing 5 or 10 per day because I had nothing else to do. Chubbles 02:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some day. Not now; if I ever feel the need for sweet pointy hats and wizard wands I'll let you know. If anything, I'm trying to reduce the time I spend around here. Thanks again, though. Chubbles 02:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - that wasn't what I was expecting, at all. My The Mops will be about a '60s Japanese psych-rock band. Chubbles 05:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Tariq Imran

Why was this article deleted. It is obviously an article that concerns an executive of a US company therefore it should not have been deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueblood786 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons that Ahmad Tariq Imran was deleted are listed here. Ahmad Tariq Imran was deleted per CSD A7 - No reasonable assertion of importance/significance. Being an executive of a US company is an ordinary resume item. If you disagree with the deletions, please follow the steps to list a new deletion review. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 15:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feast of Fools (podcast)

I believe we are ready to go. If you see anything glaring that needs to be fixed let me know. Also, I have a few final questions:

I joined that podcasting group you recommended. Should I add the group's logo to the bottom of my page?
Is there any way at all to change the name of the page from Feast of Fools (podcast) to Feast of Fools Podcast? If it's too much trouble, we'll leave it as it is.
Also, if a user types "Feast of Fools" in the Search box, it brings them to the Feast of Fools medieval festival page by default, then they would have to click on the redirect link at the top to bring them to the Podcast page. How does it work to bring up a disambiguation page first?

Thanks again for all your help! RcktManChgo 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Drama queen cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Drama queen cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC).

Hans Gruber

I was wondering if you could restore the pages and then simply redirect them to Die Hard, because the terms are likely to be searched, and all other enemies and allies redirect to their respecitve movie origin. hbdragon88 22:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the redirect to Hans Gruber. Even though the article was deleted, you can create other redirects as needed. -- Jreferee t/c 22:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well what I really wanted was the history because I like reading the articles as they were written before they were redirected. hbdragon88 23:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Horror AFDs

I guess I'm a little confused. I had thought that in order for there to be an article on a topic on Wikipedia that there had to be independent reliable sources that are substantively about the subject. In your eagerness to scold me for making a group nomination, something which is completely within the bounds of reasonable actions, you have apparently failed to notice that there are no sources that support the independent notability of a single one of these songs. Doesn't the simple fact that there are no sources kind of outweigh the completely unsupported assertions of notability? Shouldn't the people asserting notability have some sort of burden to back that up with sources? As far as what the discussion supports, no one spoke specifically in support of Over at the Frankenstein Place, Hot Patootie or Rose Tint my World. Even granting extreme benefit of every possible doubt, these three should be deleted. Otto4711 02:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles do not need to include sources to be kept at AfD. There need only exist sufficient reliable source material to create a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. "When in doubt, don't delete" gives the burden on those desiring to delete the article at articles for deletion. The listed song are so widely known and have been treated differently over the many years since their creation that a a single discussion cannot reasonably say they stand or fall together. The best way to address each article is to list them separately. Because of the reason given in the AfD close, I would not object if you want to relist them at AfD again in their own, separate listing. -- Jreferee t/c 03:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rocky Horror songs. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I'm sorry, but I think your reading of the debate was incorrect. Otto4711 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Erskine

I have already asked a few people about this, but if none of them have changed/fixed it before you see it, can you fix whatever I've done wrong in the 2nd AfD for Chris Erskine. I keep getting the old page. Cheers, JJJ999 06:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thorough

editors like you are to be admired. I like how you voted to delete Mark R. Graczynski but also added the one source you found to the article. I agree on both counts. Passing by, maybe I'll try to add to T Preckwinkle. Ciao, HG | Talk 14:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Malmö Devilants

I believe you should reconsider your closing of this AfD. The only Delete was by also the only person that said it was non-notable. The consensus of Keep was given by 6 other people and there were 2 merge/redirects from 2 other people. Reliable source was given, that being the team's own governing body. At the very least, it should have been merged as suggested but surely not deleted. 9 people "voted" and only 1 was to delete. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 15:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The team's own governing body is not independent, as required by the general notability guidelines. I created a redirect for the article. -- Jreferee t/c 15:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U had 3-party source, article from QX. Second, IGRAB are the source for that Devilants are a member of IGRAB. If u dont belive IGRAB exist u should delete IGRAB also. And Devilants are a registred club in sweden, just ask the swedish goverment.--81.236.190.174 20:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Militant Elvis Party

I don't follow your thinking. The "persuasive" argument was "Needs sourcing but I see mentions in the Financial Times, Independent, BBC News, Associated Press. This easily establishes notability". The guideline you quote is quite clear (to my mind) that mere listing is not eveidence of notability: "Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects with such coverage may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined." My thinking (and perhaps the thinking of others) was that merely asserting that something matches our notability guidelines because it is listed in a newspaper was not an argument that needed addressing. One of the reasons we drew up the guidelines was to make sure that because something is mentioned in passing in a newspaper that wasn't used as a notability argument. Could I ask you to look again at the guidelines and the actual sources given. Thanks SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The delete arguments largely were personal beliefs of Wikipedians that the topic lacked importance/significance to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. That was not enough reason to delete the article. -- Jreferee t/c 15:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My delete argument was that there is no guideline on Wiki that says that by default a political party with no elected members is notable. The article fails because it hasn't achieved the general notability criteria. Mere listings in directories or newspapers has never been a criteria for inclusion. Take a look at the BBC "source": [2]: The report is about the MP3 party, which has joined "the massed ranks of groups on the fringes of UK politics." And then it gives a list of silly parties: "There is already the All-Party Alliance Against Brussels, the Church of the Militant Elvis Party and the New Millennium Bean Party." Another source: "The noble Lord will know that I could not possibly resist pointing out that in his amendment he suggests that we should consult all political parties. We dug out the list of political parties that we have; there are 317 on the GB register, and I might hold a short quiz later to see how many noble Lords recognise them. I have no idea what these political parties are, but I love them. There is the British Unicorn Party, the Church of the Militant Elvis Party, the Grumpy Old Men Political Party, the Idle Toad Party, the Fancy Dress Party, and the Make Politicians History Party." These are clearly not actually speaking to notability when examined - quite the reverse, they are pointing out the very lack of notability! I feel you may have been misled by the statement that there were significant sources from the BBC. A passing, dismissive mention in a list is more indicative of non-notability than notability. Please, take a look yourself for the sources that Wikidemo mentions. Wikidemo hasn't proved notability, merely stated it. That is not an argument. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malmö Devilants

6 vote keep, 2 redirect and 1 delete and u say it was consensus? --81.236.190.174 19:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not a vote. It looks like one, but it isn't a vote. I considered the weight of the arguments and the delete arguments were stronger than the keep arguments. If you disagree, please feel free to follow the steps to list a new deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 19:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are u to do that? And consensus is a lie. Please tell me how 6 keep, one Delete and 2 redirect are consensus for redirect.--81.236.190.174 19:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Malmö Devilants. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 81.236.190.174 19:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on those 2 media articles presented in the deletion review, I have to concur that deletion was wrong and not in consensus. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked before you self-overturned, they were mentioned/described in the first keep opinion, and were present in the article's external links section. GRBerry 16:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion changed as I read and reread the AfD in view of your post. I would have been better off taking more time to read the AfD in view of your DRV comments before first posting at DRV. I finally matched up the AfD comments to the two references, and that's when I pieced things together. -- Jreferee t/c 22:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of JVF Radio

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on JVF Radio, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because JVF Radio is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting JVF Radio, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 08:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 42	15 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Brion Vibber interview
Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria	Board meeting held, budget approved
Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files	San Francisco job openings published
Community sanction noticeboard closed	Bot is approved to delete redirects
License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi"
News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones	Wikimedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Austin_Lonestars AfD withdraw

How do I go about withdrawing an AfD nomination? I want to withdraw the Austin Lonestars and related pages pending the outcome of Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_15#Malm.C3.B6_Devilants. I can't find any reading on withdrawing. Is it as simple as removing the tags and me saying because of my own withdrawal? Thanks. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 15:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since others have participated in the AfD to the point where your withdrawing the AfD would be inconsistent with their position, you cannot withdraw the AfD. If you change your opinion from that posted in the nomination, you can note that in the AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 21:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I almost never give out barnstars, but...

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For work on Dammit, Janet!. I haven't seen such an impressive article rescue in a very long time. W.marsh 21:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You totally deserve this, great job!--Buridan 05:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Austin Lonestars AfD

Sorry about that. I have reopened the AfD.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. : ) -- Jreferee t/c 00:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

origin of religion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Origin of religion. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Buffy CCG AfD

I just wanted to let you know that I really disagree with your closure of this AfD and plan on taking it to DRV. I see absolutely no consensus to delete in that discussion. -Chunky Rice 16:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_Collectible_Card_Game -Chunky Rice 17:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Collectible Card Game

I'm not sure of the general guidelines on this, but closing an afd after 6 days seems a little short, especially when it's essentially an WP:N issue, no previous attempts to find sources had been made and the paper sources that may exist take time to dig up. Artw 18:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review Church of the Militant Elvis Party

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Church of the Militant Elvis Party. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A review of WP:N

I've had a look at some of your AfD closures. I understand some of your views; however, I would suggest you pause and reacquaint yourself with the requirements for notability sources before closing any more AfDs. You appear to have a number of questionable closures which are then overturned, and this appears to be because of a misunderstanding on your part of what constitutes a reliable source. A mere mention is not enough. That something can be proved to exist is not evidence that something is notable. Also, when going against consensus it would be useful to consider that some of the editors !voting are not going into detail because they may feel the case is quite clear, or they are making a support of the nominator's argument. Bearing that assumption in mind, you have to look hard and close at why so many editors !voted in a certain direction, and don't be so easily taken in by assertions of notability or non-notability by one or two individuals. Yes, AfDs are not votes, but support for a statement is not to be ignored either, even without a long explanation. Your recent AfD record may appear a little embarrassing at the moment, but we learn from such incidents, and you are clearly a keen and hardworking editor with much to offer the project. It's all about looking at the total picture and getting the balance right. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Criminal

I'm at a loss as to why this article was deleted. The sources were out there, valid and I even added a source (or two) myself to show the subject had passed two criteria for WP:MUSIC. 2. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. 5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Both of these can be and were verified through All-Music Guide and Billboard. AMG: showing top 100 charting in R&B/Hip-Hop albums. http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=MR.%7CCRIMINAL&sql=11:fbfpxql0ldae~T5 AMG: artist discography (showing 5 albums released on Thump, a notable label). http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=MR.%7CCRIMINAL&sql=11:fbfpxql0ldae~T2 There are other Billboard listings. I didn't include them because, frankly, I felt what I had was sufficient: Latin Rhythm Airplay Singles Chart (for this week): http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/esearch/chart_display.jsp?cfi=403&cfgn=Singles&cfn=Latin+Rhythm+Airplay&ci=3087110&cdi=9435935&cid=10%2F20%2F2007 Top Heatseekers (Pacific): http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/esearch/chart_display.jsp?cfi=300&cfgn=Albums&cfn=Top+Heatseekers+%28Pacific%29&ci=3085601&cdi=9347987&cid=08%2F18%2F2007 Top Heatseekers (Mountain): http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/esearch/chart_display.jsp?cfi=298&cfgn=Albums&cfn=Top+Heatseekers+%28Mountain%29&ci=3085599&cdi=9347971&cid=08%2F18%2F2007 I humbly ask you reconsider the deletion of this article.--Sethacus 17:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links you provide would only justify one article sentence per link, which is not enough for a stand alone Wikipedia article. billboard.com even lacks a biography. A biography article at its most basic should have a birthdate and a location where the person is born. There are no independent reliable source material that even has that basic information. The consensus was that the topic lacked enough reliable source material. Before I close a deletion debate, I do my own search to make sure I'm not helping to improperly delete an article. I could not find enough independent reliable source information on Mr. Criminal to justify an article on him, which confirmed the consensus in that discussion. It may be beacause "Mr. Criminal" is too close to the word "criminal". If you know Mr. Criminal, you might ask him to provide you with a list of all the sources for which he has been mentioned in print. If you can provide me those, I would be happy to work with you to create a Mr. Criminal article (I like his name). Until then, I do not see a basis to restore the article. -- Jreferee t/c 18:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His billboard discography lists eight albums going back to 2003, so it is possible that someone somewhere may have commented on his music. Keep looking and if you find anything, please let me know. -- Jreferee t/c 18:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, Janet!

It seems that the article was deleted a little while ago - and Kww (talk · contribs) blanked and redirected the article. As the article seems to be a total rewrite, asserting the notability now very well, I restored the content - however, you may want to clarify things for others on the talk page of the article, perhaps?

Also, a big kudos for rewriting this article!

-- Sander Säde 18:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 20 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article San Angeles, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done! --Espresso Addict 02:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TonyTheTiger 2

Hi Jreferee, sorry for the confusion of what canvassing is. Now I know that it's OK to put the notice on your own user page if you have an RfA or RfB, but it's frowned upon to tell other users on their talk pages, per WP:CANVASS.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 05:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Blaze

Why did you delete the page Eternal Blaze? ~Ynaz~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynaz (talk • contribs) 08:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFS soundtracks

I was done on yesterday thanks for the reminder --Cs california 02:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On October 22, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Darren Heitner, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Where do you get all these amazingly obsucre and offbeat stuff from?Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About User JJJ999

I have been working on the world and regional debate related articles since 2006. I also gathered few debater Wikipedians to improve those articles under a wiki project named WikiProject Debating which is still in developing phase. Anyway, as a part of this project we prepared an article on World Universities Debating Championship ranking which is compiled by Colm Flynn, former Chair, World Universities Debating Council. User JJJ999 and some of his friends (I think) tagged that article for deletion. After having a lively debate it was decided at AfD to merge the World Universities Debating Ranking article with the parent one, i.e. World Universities Debating Championship article. During this debate and also after the merger, User JJJ999 is behaving in an impolite way. Today he removed merged list from main article[3] and again reverted it with some notes directly on the main body of the article[4]. He also commented on the article talk page showing his anger[5] though he didn't sign there and later on SignBot added his signature. It seems that he has a personal problem with Colm Flynn. But, it became impossible to make him understand that Wikipedia is not a ballet field for revenge. It would be really nice if you take initiative to make him understand the fact. Kind regards, -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 07:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JJJ999 reverted his mistake after 4 minutes[6]. The addition of his commentary to the article[7] was information that could be in the article were it sourced. It was unsourced, so you were correct to remove it. However, it was not necessarily talk page material posted in article space. As for the merger, the merged information should only include sourced information. The merged information deleted by JJJ999 athere, was not properly sourced, does not appear to be from a Wikipedia reliable source, and was a personal opinion of Colm Flynn that might be appropriate in the Colm Flynn article, but does not include enough explanation to make it appropriate for the World Universities Debating Championship article. JJJ999 omission of a signature probably was a mistake. -- Jreferee t/c 17:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Actually I tried to make other people understand that this article should not be merged with the WUDC main article but finally decision went against me. Anyway, currently Colm Flynn site is down and those text became unsourced. Hopefully it will be back soon. It would be really nice if you monitor JJJ999's post; because he is too emotional and tries to do whatever he wants without caring about others' contribution! Anyway, thanks again. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 18:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Darren Heitner. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. EyeSerene^TALK 17:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of response

I'm afraid that my comment got lost in the fury. Can you show me just one of your references that directly and in detail discusses the song "Dammit Janet"? (Obviously, not counting a simple rendition of the lyrics from a lyric site, or any site that is dedicated to RHPS?)Kww 01:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. -- Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia and Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation.[8]

It is irrelevant to Wikipedia's purposes whether any reference could be deemed to have directly and in detail discussed the song "Dammit Janet". Also, how would Wikipedians determine whether a reference directly discusses Dammit Janet!? Also, how much discussion does a reference need about Dammit Janet! for it to be considered a detailed discussion? How many such references are needed for a topic to be deemed "important"? What information in the reliable source about the topic count towards its Wikipedia "importants" and what information in the reliable source does not count towards its Wikipedia importance? Is a five-sentence article in the New Your Times about a topic sufficient to give the topic "notability importance" since 100% of the New Your Times article is about the topic? What about a 200 sentence alternative newspaper article that includes only five sentences about the topic? How would a Wikipedian go about determining the value of a particular fact about a topic to others around the world? Should those be excluded from counting towards a topic's importance to Wikipedia at AfD but be allowed in the article if it survives AfD? Why should Wikipedia require reliable sources to print their material in a particular way? Why should Wikipedia pre-determine how reliable sources should cover a song in those situations where the importance of a song is not necessarily related to a direct and detailed discussion about the song. Wikipedia should not have pre-conceived notions of what makes a song important and then dismiss reliable source coverage of a song merely because the reliable source did not present its information according to what Wikipedia wants. Wikipedia articles are nothing more than a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. Reliable source do not publish information so that it makes its way into Wikipedia. Over the past seven years, others have proposed that Wikipedia judge reliable sources in that way but it always is found to bring up too many unanswered questions, dismissed because it relies on subjective opinions of Wikipedians, and is too restrictive to meet Wikipedia's goal of free access to the sum of all human knowledge. -- Jreferee t/c 18:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you don't think the standards discussed in WP:N (which require "significant coverage" in "reliable sources", further defining "significant coverage" as "means that sources address the subject directly in detail") are relevant?Kww 20:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, enough sources address the Dammit, Janet! subject directly in detail to meet WP:N. Otherwise, I could not have found so much material for the article. -- Jreferee t/c 22:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a single one of your sources addresses the song directly in detail. If I'm wrong, give me a quote of the direct, detailed discussion. I'm especially eager to hear the details from your Entertainment Weekly article about the 50 best films, or the guide to Scottish gardens, or the myriad articles about Janet Jackson.Kww 22:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make up the details in the Wikipedia article. I got them directly from the reliable sources. If it says it, I put it in; if it don't, I don't. Wikipedia should not be turned into rocket science. -- Jreferee t/c 23:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Hample DRV

Unfortunately, the "endorse closure" arguments that have appeared mean the DRV can't be speedily closed, and the AFD result can't be overturned to "delete" even if that's what the closing admin intended (besides, all the endorse closures would become overturns as soon as the article is deleted). --Core desat 22:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoemoney DRV

Is there a chance we can see the proposed recreation in userspace first - not that that's required but it may prevent unnecessary drama. Carlossuarez46 18:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T-Rock DRV

Please reconsider your opinion about lack of sources as I have provided a few that back up his notability claim. Also I have proposed that the version without the trademark be restored, the trademark was L-Burna's idea. link T Rex | talk 00:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, I already saved a copy of the article before it got deleted in my sandbox. Sources are hard to come by, the only one that actually contains most of his claims of notability are in his Myspace which probably won't be considered a reliable source. T Rex | talk 03:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Believe it or not, I JUST noticed a message you left on my talk page about 20 days about this article. I guess nobody must read the column, because nobody has vandalised my page, nor had the issue in question been brought up again. It's kind of funny too, because I was just reverting him per consensus. Either way, I know exactly who he is, so if you want to ban him, I'd be more than happy to name names. Thanks for pointing it out, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The users name is Multiplebraininjuries (talk · contribs). He made 5 edits to Chris Benoit and then was reverted by a different user. He immediately reverted that, saying "Thanks, but no thanks. Mine is clearly more precise and more informative, tidy, etc. Don't bother changing it back again or this could go on for weeks. Kthxbye". [9] I noticed his edits after that and I noticed he was adding incorrect info and stuff that went against consensus, so I reverted him and he immediately reverted that, saying "Which is a suburb of Atlanta. DUH. Besides, change JUST that part of it if it's such a burden for you to accept, instead of eroding everything. Git." [10] After that he assumed I was the one who added the info, and he kept targeting me, leaving a message on my talk page [11] as well as the page of another user [12]. Even when someone else reverted his edits, he attacked me, saying "Un. Believable. I've had enough, I'm reporting you to whoever's in charge. You are a hack and I'm taking it out of either of our hands. Fool." [13] After that, he "reported" me here and disappeared. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the dead give away is that he wanted to add "It is generally accepted that Benoit killed his wife and son, and subsequently hanged himself" to the page. In the article, it says "go onto the Chris Benoit page and edit the top paragraph, where it says "Benoit killed his wife and son" so that it says "It is generally accepted that Benoit killed his wife and son"." It was also published the day after the incident. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At 10:17, 5 October 2007, Multiplebraininjuries (talk · contribs · logs) tried to revise the statement "killed his wife and son" in the Chris Benoit article to read "It is generally accepted that Benoit killed his wife and son". This was undo two hours later at 12:37. Multiplebraininjuries reverted the article back to read "It is generally accepted that ..." three hours later at 15:35 Scorpion0422 undid Multiplebraininjuries' post four minutes later at 15:39, which Multiplebraininjuries reverted two minutes later at 15:41. Scorpion0422 again undid Multiplebraininjuries' "It is generally accepted that ..." post at 15:43. Multiplebraininjuries then reverted the article to include the "It is generally accepted that ..." language at 15:45 and then again at 15:49 after Scorpion0422 undid Multiplebraininjuries' 15:45. [email protected] undid Multiplebraininjuries' 15:49 post at 16:07. Multiplebraininjuries reverted at 16:22, thinking that Scorpion0422 had made the 16:07 change. Multiplebraininjuries then posted a complaint about on the Arbitration Committee talk page at 16:24. [email protected] then removed Multiplebraininjuries' "It is generally accepted that ..." post from the article at 16:30. A day later, on 6 October 2007, T. G. Corke stated at this post that Scorpion0422 "needs to die now" and then urged T. G. Corke's readers to edit the Chris Benoit article so that "Benoit killed his wife and son" so that it says "It is generally accepted that Benoit killed his wife and son". T. G. Corke and Multiplebraininjuries are the same person. -- Jreferee t/c 13:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've stopped assuming good faith

To state that I have not been quoting Wikipedia policy at you is simply false, and you must be consciously lying. I have brought up the requirement of "direct and detailed examination" multiple, multiple, times, and you have completely failed to address it. You have not been able to provide a single example of direct and detailed examination of the topic from any of your myriad of paper references, and I am now convinced that the reason you chose only paper references without a single online reference is to avoid scrutiny.Kww 15:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I offended you through my DRV post. Your nomination to delete Dammit, Janet! read, "Song is still non-notable, and no amount of rewriting the article will fix that. That's why the first AFD voted "delete" instead of "keep and fix"."[14] That is what the closer had to work with and his Keep review of that was being addressed at DRV. At DRV, the closer stated "The article should have been deleted by strength of argument." In response, I posted at DRV,

"Starting off with the AfD nomination, the AfD nomination stated "non-notable" without linking to any Wikipedia policy and guideline. The only evidence the nominator provided was "the first AFD voted "delete" instead of "keep"". The nominator did not provide any reasoned arguments based in policy that would support deleting the article."[15]

I think that is a fair assessment of the AfD nomination statement. Take a look at Just not notable. As for each of the thirty eight references addressing the subject directly in detail, not one of the delete arguments provide evidence that of this. They were unsupported conclusory statements about the cited references, including your non-nomination posts in that AfD. The process is called article for deletion for a reason. Those wanting to delete the article have the burden of providing sufficient reason supported by evidence to delete the article. I footnoted all the text for the very reason to show that my edits were not original research and to ensure that the content can be checked by any reader or editor. As for using paper references, do you really expect a thirty year old song to mostly have online reference? I agree with you that there are online reference to be found that will help improve the article. And I am sure over time that others will add them to the article. I added what I could find and feel confident that other Wikipedian's will improve the article. All of us working together as a team to improve article content is what Wikipedia is all about. -- Jreferee t/c 13:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fogen

Ah I created that DRV. Best I can say is go to Wikipedia:Fromowner_documentation#How_it_works and read it replaceing "fromowner" with "fogen". If you have any more specific questions I may be able to help further.Genisock2 14:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Recent additions 145/History

Hi - I have an updated version of the DYK tool which addresses nearly all your recent comments. I've created a new history table, see Wikipedia:Recent additions 145/History. There's at least one anomaly I'm still chasing (Boosey & Hawkes). As usual, let me know if there's anything that looks like the tool should have caught. BTW - there are more multiple noms in Wikipedia:Recent additions 147/History than you noticed. I've added two more rows. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully, the updated version of the DYK tool can catch the multiple noms (however they are configured). I'll try to keep an eye out for multiple credits, like this one. I'll get on Wikipedia:Recent additions 145/History and use this thread to post any comments. -- Jreferee t/c 14:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 43	22 October 2007	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens, budget released	Biographies of living people grow into "status symbol"
WikiWorld comic: "George Stroumboulopoulos"	News and notes: Wikipedian Robert Braunwart dies
WikiProject Report: League of Copyeditors	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD close

Regarding this, I would take issue with your assumption that I am attempting to prove a point. The article in question is a substub and reasonable people might consider it deletable, though I do not. Even if I used {{hangon}}, outlined my reasoning on the talk page, and then waited for another admin to review it, one can assume that it would then be listed as a procedural nom as a disputed speedy. In any case, the nom would be still be by a user who didn't have an interest in deleting the article. I have listed numerous articles as procedural noms while going through CAT:CSD and I really am not sure what the unnecessary imposition on Wikipedia is that you are implying in your closing statement. Cheers, Banyan Tree 18:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated Sudan Tribune for deletion using a keep reasoning that also showed prior involvement in the article as the article's creator. It wasn't a procedural nom. CygnetSaIad's A7 speedy delete nomination obviously was inappropriate. Rather than letting the A7 speedy delete nomination be addressed by the usual course of action, you created an AfD with a keep reasoning to create a discussion that would embarrass CygnetSaIad and make a point to CygnetSaIad using AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 19:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I had come across an substub without sourcing on CSD patrol, I would have speedied it in the lack of a detailed reason not to. I also found CygnetSaIad's reasoning to be thoroughly based in policy and half-expected the closing admin to delete it despite all the keeps. Just out of curiosity, what was the proper course of action after the speedy tag showed up on my watchlist? - Banyan Tree 20:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to echo my dissapointment in your actions:

Here you close the deletion review claiming that "[you] reclosed the non-admin AfD close with a different result to which this DRV does not apply." I'm unclear how you interpreted "None of [the sources] provide any information that would allow us to write a neutral verifiable article on the topic" to mean that somehow this was about a non-admin close.
As discussed above, not only does your closing demonstrate shocking failure to assume good faith, it shows clear misconceptions about how speedy tags are routinely handled. BanyanTree's opening of the AfD was a demonstration of respect for another editor's opinion, and should be lauded not derided.

I'd strongly suggest that you canvas some more experianced administrators regarding how you've handled this. I'd also ask that you consider reversing your close of the deletion review. Towards this end, I'll be placing a note on User talk:Xoloz asking his opinion as a respected closer.
Without equivocation,
CygnetSaIad
23:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a passerby in this, I tend to agree with the above editors. As a procedural matter, BanyanTree's AFD was perhaps outside our normal process, as was CygnetSaIad's speedy -- but neither seemed to be done with any malice. Rather they seem like good-faith attempts to resolve a question of notability. Barring some sort of prior history with the editors that I don't know about, I'd call that a good-faith mistake at worst -- and would not assume that it was motivated by anything other than an effort to quickly, easily, and calmly resolve a question (even if done without following entirely proper procedure). (Wikipedia, after all, is not a battleground.) This is wholly my opinion, but to me it seems the proper approach is to address and correct any procedural mistakes in that effort, rather than assume an intent to disrupt Wikipedia, embarass anyone, or the like. It can be hard to assume good faith -- once you see a few people twist procedures around in bad faith, it can be hard to remember that most mistakes are just mistakes, and that most editors are good people. I think you should have assumed more good faith in this situation, but I think everyone's fine and no one's too torn up about it. On the question of what to do with the AFD, though, I tend to agree with CygnetSaIad that we might want a bit more discussion. I don't know that I have a view on the article, but the reasoning for the close doesn't seem to hold up -- the nomination was not made in bad faith and there's clearly a question here on which we should seek community input. I'll leave it to you, but it may make sense to seek such input. --TheOther Bob 01:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Thanks for the notice, Jreferee. Apple99 sent me a message/attack regarding the DRV earlier today. Ah well, no surprise here. I expected OPU to push this into DRV. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of article for deletion: Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell

On 6 October 2007, a Wikipedia administrator who uses the pseudonym “Jreferee” nominated the article for deletion. Although personal attacks are frowned upon under Wikipedia etiquette, Jreferee, who is aware that I post information using my real name rather than a pseudonym, made a number of serious allegations about me which are untrue.

During the period of several days when the proposed deletion proceedings were underway, no one notified me even though I was the prime subject of discussion and could have taken the opportunity to rebut the incorrect information put forward by Jreferee in support of his or her nomination to delete. The attempt to have the article deleted was unsuccessful. There were more votes to “keep” than “delete”, the only two votes for deletion came from a single individual within a period of 15 minutes.

Since these allegations were published on Wikipedia and amount to a direct attack on me, I believe that it is reasonable for me to respond in an article entitled: Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell Johnadonovan 00:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between book and film version of charlie and the chocolate factory

Jreferee, do you know where I can find the old version of the page Differences in book and film of Charlie and the chocolate factory, because I would like to see this page. If you can tell me where to find, it would be helpful. thank you.Year 2144 05:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Craig mugshot

Hi Jref. Regarding the Larry Craig mugshot DRV, my initial reaction is to find Guy's argument convincing, but I want to understand your position a little better before I comment. Where could this image possibly belong, except in Craig's article? And if we agree that it doesn't belong there, then what is the point of undeleting it? I don't fully understand the process issues behind this, but is there a reason that they are particularly important in this case? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior is more important than content. We don't screw people over who disagree with us merely because the outcome of the consensus on the content seems like it might go a certain way. The image was removed from the article without consensus, but I agree that the BLP issue concerning a mug shot warranted its removal from the article without a formal consensus. I'm hoping the DRV closer will conclude a formal consensus to keep the image out of the article, but that is not what DRV usually does, so the in/out of article matter might not be resolve. The image also was deleted without process. Lwalt is entitled to process like everyone else. If people do not feel that they are being treated fairly, then they may behave bad which may inspire bad responses, and then bad replies, and so on. -- Jreferee t/c 00:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 44	29 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled	WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Agriculture
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preity Zinta FA

Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP

Just thought I'd let you know that I think that 90.241.17.141 is an IP of Multiplebraininjuries (talk · contribs). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Legend of the Green Dragon

Didn't think this belongs on the deletion review page, but wanted to comment on "Also, check out Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, including What about article x? and All or nothing."

Specifically from Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x.3F, "Although these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; so an entire comment should not be dismissed because of a comparative statement like this."

Under the same principle, it was my intention to suggest that if this is the standard by which articles are judged, then the reference article (a topic that I doubt any who knew much about the subject would debate notability on, and which is held up as a standard against the original article) would also fail, suggesting that the standard is insufficient, and so the original article deserves leniency.

Coupled with the fact that WP:Fiction specifically states, "Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) covers the notability of characters, items, places, and other elements within a work of fiction." So the notability standard only covers "elements within a work of fiction," which would be, for example, an article about a character or place in the game, and not the game itself. To my knowledge no such articles exist, and if they did, I would support their deletion.

So there are two factors at play here: (1) Mis-applied notability requirements, and (2) notability requirements which if leveraged as they have been in this case, would shut out a genre, not just this article (which of the genre was one of the better articles).

That's the point I was trying to make; and no one has really responded to them. I tend to put things in too many words though, so maybe I'm not doing a good job communicating my specific objections.

FWIW, it's not my intention to change your mind on your vote by posting to your talk page, it's just that what I had to say here is sufficiently tangential that I didn't think it belonged in the discussion, and I wanted to be sure I was able to communicate my thoughts without derailing the relevant discussion there.

(forgot to sign) MightyE 17:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Jeremy Michael Ward; WCWM; Lethbridge West; Henry de Montherlant; Norton Simon Museum; Exciting Soccer; AdvanceMAME; Cool (aesthetic); Franz Beckenbauer; Robert Ley; Gridlee; Mame Madior Boye; Trial of Saddam Hussein; Great white shark; Three Mile Island accident; Robby Roto; Final Solution; Frédéric Chopin; Crown glass (optics)

Cleanup: Breakdance; Marshall Dyllon; Dale Earnhardt
Merge: Random access memory; DotA Allstars; AOL
Add Sources: Jim Crow laws; Gamer; Yellowcard
Wikify: Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease; List of radio stations in Turkey; Holy Cross Convent School
Expand: Galaxy Fight; York Community High School; A1 (band)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merkin

For what it is worth, i have added my opinion on the matter at AN. Incidentally, I only edited the article because i was going through recently promoted images and checking that they had the right tags. Thanks for informing me anyway. ;) Woodym555 22:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've archived the discussion

Heavens only knows why it was an admin only discussion type thing. Totally inappropriate for WP:AN. I've archived it. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Good job. -- Jreferee t/c 14:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: F.Y.I.

Thanks for the notification. I'll take a look at it. - Mailer Diablo 06:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Paoli

What do you think i should do about the deleted page? Thanks.--Sunderland06 16:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist

I'm probably going to get shot for this but I created the Zeitgeist (video) article and i'm requesting to have it moved to Zeitgeist (film). If you're interested in contributing you can do it at the first link. Thanks! Pdelongchamp 20:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MillwallBrickMagazine.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:MillwallBrickMagazine.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for uploading Image:BRMMillwallBrick.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

Ah, I hadn't spotted that one. Many thanks! Laïka 16:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kersal Massive Deletion review

Hi. You commented on the Kersal Massive deletion review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 1#Kersal Massive). As the version of the article that was deleted had been heavily vandalised with patent nonsense and stuff made up in school (see User:Smurrayinchester/Kersal for the original page at deletion), and hence did not have a fair deletion discussion, I've created a new, reliably sourced, version which explicitly states notability at User:Smurrayinchester/Kersal2. Many thanks, Laïka 20:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 01:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac

Wow, I had no idea that sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry was going on. I knew he had a conflict of interest (as he was completely changing (in some edits contradicting) the information of the Peter Andre article, without adding any sources whatsoever, back in July and said that he was good friends with the subject a decade ago). But looking back on the page contribs of that article now, I can see all of the main accounts that were mentioned in the report have at least three edits each and all were changing the last name of Anthony Cruise , mentioned in the article, to Anthony Chidiac. Anyway, thanks for telling me about the report. If I find any suspicious edits on RC patrol, I'll be sure to take note of them. AngelOfSadness talk 18:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Save us.222

Re your message: Thanks for the heads-up. My involvement was fairly minimal. I had deleted the redirect to the already deleted article and reverted some article spam. Looking around at some of the relevant articles, there's a lot of spam going on. =\ -- Gogo Dodo 06:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Recent additions 145/History

See above. -- Jreferee t/c 07:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 6#Wahroonga Public School (closed)

Hello, just here to inform you that the deletion of Wahroonga Public School has beenoverturned. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 17:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist (video)

A draft userspace article has been created. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8. Pdelongchamp 19:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 22:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anothersliceofhistory sockpuppet case

I offered to close the case as a gesture of good will given that the user was decrying Wikipedia and leaving. The preponderance of evidence points to the fact they were sockpuppets and I still believe so. The two worked in synchronized lockstep in the two articles they edited. They edited the pages with identical changes to avoid the 3RR rule. If you review Talk:David Vitter#RfC: Can the David Vitter section discussing the earmark for the Louisiana Family Forum state that LFF "combats evolution" and that ties existed between the two? I believe I showed patience defending a sourced section against two identical sounding editors who decried the left-wing conspiracies of the New Orleans paper The Times-Picayune and the importance of TRUTH (their caps) over verification. You should notice on the talk page that I patiently discussed the standard policies of Wikipedia to no avail. I attempted to corral their many concerns into separate sections to reach consensus. These users are members of the Louisiana Family Forum (predicated that they are sockpuppets).

I believe you are being gamed if you take at face value what this user says about his background. If you feel after investigating the talk page that I did not work in good faith, then I will accept your determination and advice and adjust how I handle protecting a page from vandalism in the future. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 01:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You posted at the SSP case, "I have come to the conclusion that these two users are in fact not the same people and respectively request that you withdraw this case."[16] Since there seemed to be no reason you couldn't have drawn that conclusion before you brought the SSP case, I closed that case with the statement "If not already done, ∴ Therefore should review Assume good faith and apologize to those he accused."[17] Now you post above, "The preponderance of evidence points to the fact they were sockpuppets and I still believe so."[18] If you want the SSP matter reviewed again, you will need to open a new case. -- Jreferee t/c 01:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't want to re-open it. Since both editors have left (simultaneously along with Araphel1 the other suspected puppet), there seems little need. I understood why you said what you said. My attempt at a conciliatory gesture towards ASOH which included both an apology and encouragement to continue editing fell on death ears. I wasn't questioning what you said but wanted to plead my case that I felt I was working in good faith -- didn't want to leave the wrong impression with you. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 02:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpupets

I don't have checkuser so I can't do that. I don't in fact have any recall of the details of this case. I may have blocked the user due to a checkuser informally confirming the matter over instant messenger or email. You should talk to someone who has checkuser to do this. If however, the socks look substantially similar enough then checkuser may not be necessary. I'll look at the contributions tomorrow. JoshuaZ 02:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that IP address was Mark evading the block. I'm beginning to remember a bit more about this situation. What is the suspected new sock doing? JoshuaZ 02:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's Watching :)

Just thought I'd let you know that you're not alone in monitoring the Dbromage case. It may not mean much coming from me, but I'm willing to support whatever turns out to be the outcome. It's worth noting, though, that the conversation keeps leaning towards a definite usage of legal weaselwords - I can't help feeling that "libel" and "improperly licensed contributions" are too far behind. Perhaps WP:NLT and WP:CIVIL reminders are in order? Maybe a wager on how long this slugfest goes on before someone attempts to "send in the hounds"? :) Orethrius 09:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any legal threats at Dbromage SSP and they seemed to stop bickering at Dbromage SSP. -- Jreferee t/c 11:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK update

You seem to be active at the moment. DYK needs an update.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Click there to open your card! → → →

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

Lara❤Love 19:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Note left on your userpage...

Hey, I just noticed that this was at the bottom of your userpage, dunno' if you noticed it or not. It wasn't signed, but according to the hist it was left by User:Dleewh @ 21:28, 6 November 2007.

"Hi, is it possible to seek your help in reviewing a article that i have created? Thanks
It is located at my sub page.
please advice if possible. thanks"[19]

All the best, --L'Aquatique ^talk^to^me 01:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks. I didn't notice it and appreciate your moving it to my talk page. -- Jreferee t/c 07:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Added it to the wrong page. please review again. thanks Dleewh 08:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! L'Aquatique ^talk^to^me 21:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me

How do you nominate an article for speedy deletion? I haven't the time to look up the policy. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is 9F. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it was actually supposed to be a redirect. I'll fix it myself. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Place one of the speedy deletion templates on the top of the article: {{db-author}} {{db-web}} {{db-nonsense}} {{db-test}} {{db-nocontext}} {{db-empty}} {{db-attack}} {{db-catempty}} {{db-band}} {{db-banned}} {{db-bio}} {{db-notenglish}} {{db-copyvio}} {{db-repost}} {{db-vandalism}} {{db-talk}} {{db-spam}} {{db-r1}} {{db-imgcopyvio}} -- Jreferee t/c 07:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 12:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Anything to declare?

Hi, thanks for your comment regarding this essay: it's really more of a dual purpose essay than a normal essay: it's not only discussing sockpuppetry, which Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been the subject of discussion about, but also things like the Essjay controversy (should it be included on the List of hoaxes page - I'll be asking that question at the talk page). So you OK?? Anyway, thanks for the feedback about it... feel free to expand it a bit more! --Solumeiras ^talk 18:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an essay that seems to have a good title and a topic that addresses the conflicts between an open edit policy and need to know who is making the edits at some level. I don't see it as being deleted. -- Jreferee t/c 18:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Glad someone's taking notice of it! This essay does need wider community discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solumeiras (talk • contribs) 18:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 45	5 November 2007	About the Signpost

Wikimedia avoids liability in French lawsuit	WikiWorld comic: "Fall Out Boy"
News and notes: Grant money, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Lists of basic topics
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 3, Issue 46	12 November 2007	About the Signpost

Unregistered page creation remains on hold so far	WikiWorld comic: "Exploding whale"
News and notes: Fundraiser, elections galore, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Missing encyclopedic articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Ochoa & Emilio Ochoa y Ochoa

They are the same.. how do I merge? Benn wanting to do that but no idea how to do it. Callelinea 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the talk page on Zeitgeist

Hey,

Is it normal that I can't edit the talk page? Is this because it's going through an AfD after being relisted?

Anyway, my questions on the talk page were for you regarding your edit about the incorrect premise and original research. I took that text from the controversy pages I listed. Why would it be ok to be included in that page, but not the zeitgeist article which reiterates the same points? or perhaps it shouldn't be included in either? I'm curious. Let me know, thanks. Pdelongchamp 20:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did either the Komoszewski "Reinventing Jesus" reference and/or the Hermann, "Simulation finds 9/11 fireproofing key" state that "The views presented in 'Zeitgeist, the Movie' are in contrast to published reports by the National Institute of Standards and Technology."? If not, then the inclusion of that material in the article is original research. It might be true, but you need a reliable source to link the movie to the the National Institute of Standards and Technology. On a different note, I think the present protection is from the prior protection of the article in July 2007. The article reads well and the last thing you want is for free editing of that article while the AfD is going on. If you can get a Keep consensus out of the AfD, that should leave the article on Wikipedia for at least three months. So far, the AfD is going well. You have a lot of experienced editors supporting keeping the article and I think everyone is impressed with your turnaround effort on the article. The close of the AfD will be on or after 16:13, 18 November 2007, so cross your fingers until then. -- Jreferee t/c 23:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean but I have a question. If someone notable were to argue that the earth was at the center of the universe, could we not include a statement that these views are in contrast with the views of the scientific community? Would we have to wait until someone specifically mentioned the notable person's name in regards to an explanation that the earth revolves around the sun etc? Don't we only need to provide a source if it's a statement that is challenged or likely to be challenged? I'm not sure anyone would ever challenge that the view that the 9/11 was a controlled demolition is in contrast with a report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. If this film presents a significant viewpoint regarding the events of 9/11, isn't it important to include other significant viewpoints regarding the events of 9/11? As for the protection, I think you're right and even though I'm discussing this with you now I agree that waiting until the AfD closes before making too many changes is a good idea. Pdelongchamp 17:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that we have to wait until someone specifically mentioned the notable person's name in regards to an explanation that the earth revolves around the sun. See WP:SYN. It's only important to include other significant viewpoints regarding the events of 9/11 in the Zeitgeist movie article if a reliable source thought it important to address the two together. If you include other significant viewpoints regarding the events of 9/11 in that article not based on what a reliable source says about the movie, then the article will not reflect the collective of the reliable source material available about the movie. Your NPOV WP:OR efforts in fact will make the article WP:POV. Once the AfD is over, my interest in the article will be over and the article probably will be unprotected. Likely, you'll be left to shepard the article against the socks editing it. I added your name to the top of the article talk page that may give you a leg up in discussions and in requests to admins regarding the article. -- Jreferee t/c 18:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jreferee, this was very helpful. Pdelongchamp 18:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

User:Eagle_101/potential_crap_2/els_sort - thanks for sorting this. :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to say it, its only 5,000 pages, I have another report that I'm publishing soon with 10,000 bad articles that are totally seperate from this report :). I will with the next report be sure to put in as much info as possible. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the Dr. Steel DRV

Hey there. I just read your last comment on this DRV discussion, and was kind of thrown by your logic (not that difficult right now, mind you). I think an interview with someone that's printed verbatim would be just fine if it was in an actual news source of some sort; let's say I interview someone from a band and the interview is posted at, say, Spin.com. That would qualify as a reliable source because Spin has editorial oversight of a professional nature. I use such interviews as indications of notability regularly when I come across bands that are right on the edge of meeting WP:MUSIC when they're printed in reasonable webzines. Suicide Girls, though, doesn't appear to be a really reliable source for info, being a sort of hash of different topics. Anyhow, just wanted to point that out. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 21:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I copy some stuff from your userpage?

Please tell me what I can copy and what I can't from your page (? I will give you some sort off appreciation on my page if you want :).--iSoroush (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied my user page from Nishkid64, so copy away! -- Jreferee t/c 13:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Alexander (Cartoonist)

Morning! I thought I'd bring your attention to an article which you voted for deletion in a recent discussion (and which got deleted) has since been recreated by a sockpuppet under a different title. This was nominated for deletion again although it survived. However, since it's been brought to the attention of the closing admin that it's just another rehash of deleted material, it's again been put up for deletion discussion here I thought you'd probably want to make your thoughts known given the strength of your conviction in the last discussion.Hen Features 13:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Reagan image DRV

Hi Jreferee,

You might want to take a look at my comment immediately below yours - your analysis was convincing to me in a way you probably had not intended. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 13:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image licenseing

Hi there. What I am about to say is a completely truthful statement, and I would be willing to swear it on a Bible. I joined Wikipedia in late January 2006 under my IP address, then created Happyme22 in February. I soon began the process of editing and adding to articles, as well as uploading images, a process I still do not 100% about. I bought a number of images from the AP, many of which I uploaded to here not knowing about Wikipedia's licensing. I tried tagging many of the images as being PD (because I had no idea), then Copyrighted with permission, because I had bought the images and thought that I had been granted rights to them, as well as the fact that I did not know how to correctly license them (including Image:NREAGANKISSCASKET1.jpg). Now I believe this image is iconic within itself and am more than willing to have a debate regarding that. And because I did not know Wikipedia's policies, I uploaded many other fair use images, which should all be deleted (unless they are iconic, which i don't believe any of them are). I'm sorry for all the trouble I've caused, would like to appologize to you and the Wiki community, and would like to have a debate regarding this image and it's value to Wikipedia. Thanks a lot, Happyme22 (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darn

I knew there was someone I forgot to respond to. Sorry dude. So you know, there are many and varied reasons I'm leaving the project. Just clearing up loose ends now.

Five points:

1. Creating that account was probably a mistake of judgement. I don't think I was being disruptive. I do need to point out that User:The Parnsip! still has a misleading username. When I read a thread, I rely on the sigs to know who I'm talking to. I'm not necessarily going to click on each link in a sig to verify the username! IMO, it's pretty rude and misleading to disguise a sig to this extent. All a bit of a moot point as I really have left the project.

2. xFD is causing lots of problem. For instance, adding Wikipedia:Facebook to MFD was a bad move. There was absolutely no need for it to be listed - as someone on WP:AN/I says: MFD is used by the cool kids who think that they want to make their mark on Wikipedia. After all, privacy concerns can be best dealt with by removing violations and then keeping a close watch of the article. It doesn't have to be destroyed for others. I know that I used that Facebook page when I needed to ID Wikipedians for meetups. If I hadn't been able to, it would have been a lot harder to find them. The whole argument goes that "it's not encyclopedic, we are not facebook or a social networking site", therefore delete. If that's the case, then remove Wikipedia:Meetup!!!! As you can see there is a whole bunch of inconsistency going on there. Who has time for that sort of rubbish?

3. I finished USA PATRIOT Act. Jimbo has been very supportive of this effort. However, due to the fact that my wife is due in 3 months time (a baby girl!) I can't spend as much time on Wikipedia as I used to. I was planning on getting back into it when things calmed down, but given everything that is going on here, I don't much see the point anymore.

4. WP:TRIVIA. I'm not going to contribute to a project that says it wants to be an "encyclopedia" when there are those who revert the remove of "trivia" sections. Trivia sections are the lazy editors way of adding info, and should be discouraged.

5. The same editor who was pushing trivia also created Wikipedia:Service awards. Thus, these days it doesn't matter about the quality of your contributions but it matters about the length of service and number of edits. Case in point: the "Master Editor" award. If someone awards it to you, and you don't have have 40,000 edits and 5 years' service, then you have it removed. WTF? Is this really what we want encouraged on this project?!?

There are more, many more. But they are the main ones. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that you are burnt out and a break might be a good thing. I just developed Identification and handling of inappropriate alternate accounts to deal with the gray area between socks and good editors, which might have addressed your concerns with User:The Parnsip! (depending if it was an alternate account) It is very unlikely that Wikipedia:Facebook would get deleted. But if it does, it does. Trust in the process. USA PATRIOT Act is an incredible piece of work. Congrats! It may have take a lot out of you. I wouldn't sweat WP:TRIVIA. It doesn't matter what it says. Lists of trivia in articles should be turned into prose. End of story. I didn't know about removing Wikipedia:Service awards. If one editor awards an award and a second editor removes it, then the second editor is wrong for removing it. In any event, it looks like you are getting too wrapped up in the outcome of things. Eventually, things work out. For example, Template:Spoiler is almost gone. The last three months of pregnancy is tough and your wife probably will need more attention. Perhaps a wiki break will help renew your spirit and help her out as well. You account should be there when you get back. Best. -- Jreferee t/c 00:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks mate. I didn't want to leave on a bad note with good editors who I've known for a while. I'm not really burned out, just more very disappointed with what I feel that Wikipedia has become. Thanks for the kudos on USA PATRIOT Act, incidently :-) It's a bit too large though (216KB long). 211.30.71.131 (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think I would be disappointed with what I feel that Wikipedia has become so long as I feel that the overall system is working - is consensus still working, do most people assume good faith, etc. Many admins take this overall view approach because if they don't, they will feel the effects of the daily crap that goes on and always will go on. For a while, I was a little sad that AfD recently was taken over by people using their personal beliefs as to whether something was *sniff* good enough to be in Wikipedia - something I see as arrogance. I was seeing the results at DRV. That didn't last long and I think the tide shifted back to giving amount of reliable source material its importance. The tide probably will move again. Anyway, I hope things go well for you. -- Jreferee t/c 15:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed/Infobox window covering

Regarding your comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox window covering, perhaps I made a procedural error in listing this for deletion. Where, then, does the discussion take place to arrive at consensus about whether the proposed infobox should become "live"? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:New admin school/Deleting

Could you please take another look at your edit at [20]? I'm not sure that the passage about deletion etiquette was fully clear. Thanks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read it again and it looks fine to me. Could you be more specific as to why it is not fully clear? Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 14:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a page is relatively easy. Basically, bring up the deletion template, enter a reason, and hit delete. Deleting etiquette is simple, too. Generally, you do not need to consult with the original deleting admin and there usually is no reason to notify them after delete a page they previously deleted.

What does it mean to "bring up the deletion template"? An admin can delete an article without typing the {{ or }} symbols so I don't see how templates are involved.
The reference to "the original deleting admin" is unclear in that it implies that every article which is deleted has been deleted before.
The idea of that someone who wants to delete an article might have to notify an admin who previously deleted the same article does not sound right. That would be upholding the same decision the previous admin made -- just the opposite of a wheel war.
There is a word missing after the word "after". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and sorry for not seeing what you saw. I made some changes. What is the official name for this page, for example? I thought it was deletion template, but please feel free to change course text if you know what it is call. If you think the statement "you do not need to consult with an original deleting admin in all situations" is appropriate, please feel free to revise the text. -- Jreferee t/c 16:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the text somewhat. I would say to "click on the delete tab" rather than "bring up the deletion template". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hall of Fame

The above project, of which you are a listed participant, is currently being considered for deletion. Please feel free to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Hall of Fame. Also, I have added a few nominations to the project's talk page. I would welcome your input on those nominees, or any others you think might qualify for inclusion. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion?

Hi, I recently saved Fruit (slang) from AfD but was a bit disheartened when the closing (non-admin) characterized as a non-consensus and insinuated that the article rewrite actually compounded the problem. If it's true and I'm being overly sensitive then fine, just tell me. In the past your closing comments have seemed fair as well as constructive pointing out areas that editors should revisit to both improve the article or re-nom if concerns are not addressed. Perhaps you've set the bar too high but I'm hoping for a similar assessment if this article is on track to address concerns or if not what should be addressed, etc as well as any insights. Your time and comments are appreciated. Benjiboi 22:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi

Hello. I am going to request that the page for Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi be un-deleted and replaced with the contents of user page: User:Shritwod/Ayman_Ahmed_El-Difrawi_(draft). This page was deleted due to non-notability, however, to date it includes approximately 27 cites to independent secondary sources. These sources include respected newspapers like the washington Post as wwell as many local news outlets. According to WP:ATA:

Those working at newspapers, magazines, journals and other secondary sources have to make sure that a subject is notable before they write a piece on it, because if they do not, no-one will read it, their employer will lose money, and they will get fired. So we can rely on their judgement of "how big is big" - but we cannot rely on ours.

Further many of the arguments for deletion were made by employees of the subject. Others made invalid claims such as "I've never heard of him" and "He's just a criminal and this isn't a database of criminals." These arguments are not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines for notability which give more weight to secondary source material than the personal opinions of editors.

Thank you, --SaltyDawg (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]