User talk:Arbitrarily0/Archive/2010

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

why did you delete ken kelln?

I know when I first posted (within a few hours), there was several good points on how I hadn't adequately expressed the notability... I can make it more wordsmithier or something... Ken is a pioneer and innovator in his field, and highly recognized, more than meeting the criteria for biography notability!

Treesforourchildren (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Treesforourchildren

Hi Treesforourchildren! Consensus made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Kelln was to delete the article because it lacked notability. As Glenfarclas stated, he's "not individually notable apart from his company". With the exception of your !vote, there were none in support of keeping the article. Can you prove that he meets the notability guideline for people? Let me know, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Aritrarily0... I believe that the notability was proved with my edits AFTER the request-to-deletes were made (dec.23)... Ken HAS won a notable award by an assoication of geoscientists and engineers, as well as long been seen as a leader in his field. He runs the second-oldest solar company in CANADA. And in 1984, thanks to his efforts Saskatchewan was a world leader in passive solar (I am seeking a reference for this before I edit it).
Do the new references NOT prove this??? Treesforourchildren (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Treesforourchildren
Okay, Treesforourchildren, if you'd like to challenge the deletion discussion further, I'll recommend you to Wikipedia:Deletion review. You'll need to be able to prove that "significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." Let me know if you have any questions, and good luck! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting adoption

Hello! I was looking for someone with a lot of Wikipedia-related experience to adopt me. I'm fairly competent technically already, so I've been able to figure a lot of the basics out by myself. My primary concern will be of a dispute resolution/disciplinary nature as I originally made a Wikipedia account to try to bring balance to an extremely heated and politicized topic. In the short time I've had an account (about 2 days) my talk page has already started filling up, one of the people in particular is rather notorious on Wikipedia as an admin who abuses his position and edits articles in a biased manner, and who is often (and currently) a named party in ARBCOMs.

I'm not hoping for someone to personally intercede on my behalf in the event this person or any from his 'camp' steps over the line, so please do not mistake this adoption request as admin shopping, but I am anticipating the need for quite a bit of advice in the near future as I'm not the type of person to shy away from conflict when I know people are treating me unfairly - quite the contrary it makes me all the more determined to stick to my guns and dig in even deeper.

The effort and time I've been putting forth to familiarize myself with Wikipedia in order to contribute to this specific set of highly politicized and somewhat hijacked articles, have introduced me to the Wikipedia community which was unknown to me before as a casual user/reader. I do have a hope that I can stick around far into the future and contribute to articles dealing with a wide variety of subjects, especially those articles which are more friendly and less politically heated by nature.

Also, I apologize for having jumped the gun and adding my name to your list of the Adoptees, I misread and thought it was a list of people seeking adoption, I removed my name when I realized my error. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, +-Adam.T.Historian (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I like seeing that you've taken an interest in the wiki, and I would be glad to adopt you. I'll be happy to give you all the advice I can, just let me know. Don't worry, I've added you back to my list, and updated your userbox. Happy editing, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Great! Thanks a lot for your time, patience, and general selflessness in your ongoing pursuit to share knowledge with newer users. +-Adam.T.Historian (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Bot task request

As suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death#Automatically tagging certain categories, please tag the talk page of all existent categories listed at Wikipedia:People by year/Reports/All death categories with {{WikiProject Death}}. --Geniac (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, I responded back here. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

re Close vs. relist

I relisted, as there was a new concern brought up about whether those new sources introduced were reliable/secondary/independent enough to go towards notability - and I thought it could have been useful to have a bit more input after that comment. However, I have no objection to your close - and I agree with your assessment of the consensus. :) No worries, Cirt (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, no worries. :P Cirt (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in

Thanks, I'm doing pretty well! Not doing much over the winter break, but I'm bound to start up soon. Happy new year to you too! Saebjorn! 19:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad to here it, and you too! Always feel free to stop by with anything I can help you with, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Siberian American Aborigines

Hi, I was quite shocked to see "Pre-Siberian American Aborigines" deleted. I did not see the nomination for deletion and therefore did not have a chance to defend the article. Now that it is gone, I cannot even see whether the claims of the "killers" have any merit or not. All that I can say is: (1) it is by no means original research. Alternative theories of the population of the Americas have been held by reputable scientists and published in scientific publications; and not by me or by any friend of mine. The article was merely reporting on them. (2) The article (presumably) lacked references simply because it (like many good articles in WP) was written before WP had the polilcy and means to include them; and you cannot expect that Wikipedia's 10,000 volunteer editors will rush to provide references to some 2,000,000 articles, just because a handfule of editors decided that they should do so. (3) The claim that there is no Google reference is totally irresponsible. The name of the article was made up so as to reflect the collection of various theories, but of course each theory was published under its own name, or no name at all. (4) The article has survived several years of scrutiny by readers, many of whom presumably knew something about the subject. That should say something about its seriousness.
It is scary to seee that perfectly good articles are being quickly and permanetly deleted after such a careless review by irresponsible editors who apparently do not know the subject and do not care to do their homework. How do you think that an editor feels when he has to go through this? Every such mistake does more damage to Wikipedia than 1000 silly articles would.
Please restore the article and let responsible editors take care of it. Thank you. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jorge Stolfi! Don't worry, the deletion was by no means permanent. My job was only to determine consensus on the deletion discussion, which I found to be delete because of original research concerns. Based on the comments at the discussion, most (including myself) would prefer to see the article rewritten than stay as a redlink. Would you be willing to start a new article? I'd be happy to help you! Let me know, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the reply. At least please restore the article to my user space so that I can see what is wrong with it.
By the way, the article was nominated on the AfD on December 27 2009, then deleted on January 2, 2010. It so happens that *did* work on wikipedia during those days (terminal wikipediaholism); but I have over a thousand articles in my watchlist, and I cannot check every change in every article every day. I didn't even get a warning in my talk page.
The deletion histeria that has taken over Wikipedia is insane. The AfD process never was a "consensus" in any reasonable sense of the work]d. It was designed by deletionists and is inherently biased in their favor; the majority of the editors who are likely to vote in it are those who keep the AfD page on their watchlist — which obviously are mostly deletionists. Indeed, the last few years the AfD seems to have become a playground for editors who take pleasure in deleting other people's hard work. Extrapolating from my sample, I would guess that tens of thousands of perfectly good articles have been deleted after irresponsible reviews, like those of that article. Sigh. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi again, the article has been restored to User:Jorge Stolfi/Pre-Siberian American Aborigines so that you can make the appropriate fixes (would you mind letting me know before you decide to move it back?). As for your concerns with the AfD process, unfortunately there's not much I can do about it. I do my best to determine a consensus on arguments that are based on policy, but I'm not perfect, and either is the process itself. You have valid concerns, and you might consider bringing them up more publicly. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much! All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
PS. Er, could you please restore the talk page too? The tags claim that the issues are discussed there... Thanks, and all the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 Done - yes in fact there is some discussion there. :) Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Vanessa George

Hi Arbitrarily0

I saw you deleted the Vanessa George page. I'd very much like to speak to you about this. I'm the crime reporter for the Plymouth Herald where the incident took place and covered the case quite extensively. Please contact me on [email protected]. Many thanks

Carl Eve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.254.19 (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Carl, you can use Special:EmailUser/Arbitrarily0 to contact me via email (although you might need to create an account for this). Would you mind doing that? Otherwise I'd be happy to discuss non-private matters here. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello, would you please adopt me?. I already added myself to the list. I like to fight vandalism on wikipedia. Thanks!--GeneralCheese 01:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will do :) Please let me know where you'd like to start, or if there's anything I can help you with. I'm always glad to help, happy editing! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oahspe page: Thank You

I want to thank you for your work , in particular concerning the Oahspe page.Vanais (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, and thank you for stopping by! Take care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Fabrik

would it be appropriate to delete the Fabrik redirect? If so, how would I go about doing that? I don't see the need to keep the redirect for a minor plugin that can only be used with the main application. 16x9 (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi 16x9! In my opinion, deletion of this redirect should probably be avoided. For one, it is holding the history of the content that was merged and so should be preserved. Secondly, it allows there to be links to the software itself, rather than just Joomla#Fabrik. Does this make sense? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
That helps a little. The first part helps more as there is a record of the merge that is visible...though it seems a lot of WP:UNDUE is offered to this one plugin/addon. I doubt anyone would seriously need to search for fabrik alone when it cannot be used without joomla as it is a plugin. Thanks for the advice. 16x9 (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
True, but even if the Fabrik information in the Joomla article was eventually condensed or removed, it's still important to retain the history. Your welcome, and thanks for bringing this up. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you...

Inre this diff and the barnstar, thank you. It may not be the next few hours, but I will incorporate the sources into the artcle. By the by... do you know any Spanish-reading Wikipedians? I found what I believe may be decent sources [1] for a Spanish Animated film [2]. I'll fight through with google translate or babblefish if I must. Warm regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any Spanish-reading Wikipedians off hand. I looked around for some last night, and will gladly contact one as long as you haven't tried to 'fight with google translate' yet. Let me know, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And in appreciation...

Well... this is what remained at the close of the AFD... and THIS is now. We both know that if it had been left the way it was, it would have been tossed back to AFD within weeks... with cries of WP:NOEFFORT. So... all it did take was a little real effort to turn a sow's ear Stub into a silk purse Start or maybe even B Class. Oh, it'll never be GA or FA... but I think it will survive. Thank you for the encouragement and moral support. They mean a lot. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh no problem, if the encyclopedia could talk it would thank you too :) The work you do here is great, keep it up! I'm sure this article (which looks great now, by the way) is just one of many that has greatly benifited from your time. Thank you! Happy editing, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Keyontyli Goffney Deletion

I would like to suggest that you restore the entry on Keyontyli Goffney. The discussion was by no means unambiguous in its result. I think that we are dealing with a borderline case here: to be sure, the subject's main notability (in mainstream culture, one could say) resides in his arrest. However, he was well-known in the American gay subculture well before that, as attested by his appearances in numerous magazines, both pornographic and non-pornographic. To me, as an editor who is attempting to create a record of American gay culture, it is very frustrating to see my carefully documented work deleted (not for the first time) by editors who do not appear to be familiar with gay life. I would go so far as to say that there is a certain bias against gay articles, which are subject to much closer scrutiny than other contributions. I could point to dozens of entries that I came across just in the past week that are stubs, badly written, without proper documentation, etc. etc. and which nonetheless no one appears to be eager to delete. If you restore the article and someone else nominates it for deletion after a while, perhaps we can involve more people in the discussion. Thanks. GBataille (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi GBataille, sorry for the delayed response. In my opinion, considering the weaker arguments in favor of keeping, deletion was the best closure option. Therefore, I can't agree to restore the article. As DGG said in the discussion, there is "no sourced indication that [his] career itself is notable." In other words, reliable, third party sources on his career are lacking. I hope this helps, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I have made some improvements to the Keyontyli Goffney entry, which is currently at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GBataille/Keyontyli_Goffney. For instance, I found a detailed article (several pages) on Goffney's career in Details magazine, a well-known Condé Nast publication that belongs in the mainstream of American media. Would you have a look at the article and tell me whether you think it might be ready to be moved back into the mainspace? Thank you. GBataille (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. Well GBataille, I'm going to recommend you take this one to deletion review. By presenting your case there (your case being that "significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article"), it will give more editors than just myself a chance to review the situation. Let me know if you need help with this, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. I just requested the deletion review. I hope it works.GBataille (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
And it looks like the article is back to the namespace, good work! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

please restore New Industrial Revolution

Greetings, I noticed that you deleted a page that I created, New Industrial Revolution. I have already restored this page, therefore by wiki standards does it not receive some reprieve from arbitrary deletions? Please let me a message on my talk page. I have enlisted the help of other administrators and editors to bring this page up to snuff for wikipedia standards.

Thank you, 137.229.230.227 (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! Please let me assure you that the article wasn't necessarily arbitrarily deleted; please see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Industrial Revolution. I hope this has helped clear things up. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeylina ever

I've created a new article on Jeylina Ever from Wikipedia.fr and her personal website. Best regards Marieange22 (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, thanks for letting me know, I've responded here. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe are you transphobic?Rmarchet (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rmarchet, let me assure you that no such bias exists. I deleted the article strictly as of consensus here. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi there again! How did you make the archive box for your user talk page? I can't find the right template... The Arbiter★★★ 18:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Arbiter!! Welcome back :) Alright, I posted mine here (it's a custom version though). Also check out {{Archives}}, that should work for you as well. Let me know if I can help, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! The Arbiter★★★ 21:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Yessir, any time! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ned Kelly

I am trying to do a protected edit and wiki tells me to put my request on the 'talk' page but i cannot find any reference to 'talk' except "my talk" i assume this is not correct Can you help please below is a copy of my request [the page to be edited is Ned Kelly} —Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelandBronwen (talk • contribs) signed by Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"Edit Request" {{editsemiprotected}} please replace last line of Capture Trial and Execution by the following quotation from the Argus Newspaper of the day =The Petition to Save Ned= [as reported in The Argus newspaper 9/11/1880] “[William] Gaunson [solicitor and politician, and member, Reprieve Committee] and the Kelly sisters were admitted to a retiring room, and the former handed Captain Le Patourel [secretary to the governor] the petitions he had been getting signed for presentation to the Governor, stating that they contained 32,434 signatures.” “An examination of the petitions showed that they were signed principally in pencil, and by illiterate people, whilst whole pages were evidently written by one person. “The Executive of course determined to adhere to their decision—that the convict shall be executed on Thursday morning. This having been communicated to the prisoner's relatives they left, and returned to the Robert Burns Hotel. They were accompanied, as before, by a crowd and during the whole afternoon and evening the hotel was rushed. Immediately after their return James Kelly addressed the crowd, from the door, and told them that " it was not all over yet"—a remark that was loudly cheered.”

I've taken the liberty of moving this request over to Talk:Ned Kelly#The Petition to Save Ned Josh Parris 05:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Josh. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerning adoptees

Some of my adoptees edited for a while, but then just stopped...From your experience, do they come back? Some examples for me are user:Newchess, user:RosieClarke, and user:Shadowed Soul. Should I just drop them? The Arbiter★★★ 23:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, not RosieClarke. I just talked to her via email… The Arbiter★★★ 23:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've experienced this same problem too. You could just remove them from the list on your userpage, but I wouldn't necessarily "drop them" (in case they come back). This will give you an excuse to seek out more! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Mukti

Thanks for the changes. They were helpful. Raj2004 (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Anytime! :) -Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Closing AFDs

Please remember, when closing AFDs, such as Cyber-Ark, to remove the AFD notice from the top of the article. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stifle. Normally this script takes care of it, but because the AfD notice was added twice (first time), the banner wasn't removed automatically, and I forgot to check. Small matter, but thanks for taking care of it. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yama (Hinduism)

Hi, I have had problems inserting reference 1 for Yama (Hinduism). The reference does not show up as a footnote and I get an weird message once the page is displayed. Can you help? Thanks,Raj2004 (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed :) One of the reference tags was missing a '>', that's all. Happy to help, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again. I wrote a long article on Karma in Hinduism. Some theistic traditions of Hinduism believe that God has appointed administrators such as Shani to reward and punish during one's life; this is one explanation in their view for the ups and downs in life!!! Yama on the other hand, deals with unfinished business; he deals with you after you have departed!!
God bless you. Raj2004 (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem, do take care. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Apollon (GUI)‎‎

Can restore it to my user space? I'd like to merge it to giFT. There are sources for that as I indicated in the AfD, and Joe Chill agreed. Only the supporters of old WP:NSOFT voted delete there. Pcap ping 22:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, sure, sure. I've restored it to User:Pohta ce-am pohtit/Apollon (GUI). Thanks for doing this, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Relisting AfD's

You relisted an AfD for WP:Articles for deletion/Young Hot Rod (2nd nomination). It had already been relisted once. This article was previously deleted. I nominated it, one editor has !voted delete. Nobody has even mentioned keeping it. I thought that the practice was going to be that unopposed AfD's were going to be treated similar to PROD's in that if it is unopposed after 7 days, it would be considered a delete. Did I misunderstand that? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, you may have some misunderstanding. The official relist policy can be found here, but for the most part, only third-time relists are to be avoided. In the case of WP:Articles for deletion/Young Hot Rod (2nd nomination), I relisted only because no discussion occurred since User:Tim Song relisted, and I trust his judgment. Unlike PROD, nominations without comment are closed as 'no consensus'. Worse case scenario, a second relist will only generate more discussion, no worries. Take care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Just so you don't think I'm crazy, the discussion of that proposal is here. [3]. I didn't follow it through. I thought it had been implemented because I've seen admins closing AFD's stating that without opposition, it was being treated as uncontested, similar to a PROD. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
XD - well I'm glad I could help, take care! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Curious about your rollback requirements

I notice you are one of the admins willing to grant rollback rights. Are there any general requirements necessary to be granted rollback? I looked at the rollback page and didn't see anything. I'm curious if there are any standards at all, even unwritten ones. Auntie E. (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well there aren't any specific requirements, just that the editor is familiar with reverting and dealing with vandalism. Other than that it's at the administrator's jurisdiction. You, for example, seem to be an editor of whom I'd be willing to grant rollback rights, if you'd like them. Just let me know, or if you have any other questions. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

I am not sure I agree with giving autoreviewer rights to Nkf31. This ed. has a COI with World Scientific, a relatively minor publisher, and has been adding multiple articles on their journals which I and Crusio and Abductive are busy removing--not just a few, but most of them. I'm known for being particularly tolerant in this area, but journals which are established for only a year or two and are in no major index are extremely unlikely to be notable. I & others have told him this, but he continues to add the articles. In a sense it does not matter, for the several concerned eds will surely check every article he enters, but autoreviewer is at least an apparent open invitation to spam. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree - my mistake, I completely forgot to investigate this, so thanks for letting me know. Take care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Need your help again

Hi, ArbitrailyO, I am editing the article on Hanuman. Can you please remove footnotes 15 and 17 referring to Catherine Ludvik without destroying footnotes 14 and 17 referring to Philip Lutgendorf? Also I would like to actually insert this correct page link at pg. 141, " http://books.google.com/books?id=fVFC2Nx-LP8C&pg=PT155&dq=hanuman+shani+Ravana&cd=1#v=onepage&q=hanuman%20shani%20Ravana&f=false "

Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Lutgendorf, Philip (2007). Hanuman's tale: the messages of a divine monkey. Oxford University Press US. p. 141. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=fVFC2Nx-LP8C&pg=PT333&dq=avatara+Hanuman&lr=&client=firefox-a&cd=1#v=snippet&q=avatara%20%20Shiva&f=false.
  2. ^ Catherine Ludvík. Hanumān in the Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki and the Rāmacaritamānasa of Tulasī Dāsa. pp. 10-11. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=KCXQN0qoAe0C&pg=PA10&dq=Hanuman+Rudra&client=firefox-a&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Hanuman%20Rudra&f=false.
  3. ^ Lutgendorf, Philip (2007). Hanuman's tale: the messages of a divine monkey. Oxford University Press US. p. 141. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=fVFC2Nx-LP8C&pg=PT333&dq=avatara+Hanuman&lr=&client=firefox-a&cd=1#v=snippet&q=avatara%20%20Shiva&f=false.
  4. ^ Catherine Ludvík. Hanumān in the Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki and the Rāmacaritamānasa of Tulasī Dāsa. pp. 10-11. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=KCXQN0qoAe0C&pg=PA10&dq=Hanuman+Rudra&client=firefox-a&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Hanuman%20Rudra&f=false.

Thanks! Raj2004 (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this, Raj. Try to make all of the changes above yourself first, then I'll go back and fix any mistakes. Does that sound okay to you? That way you'll start to learn how citations work. Let me know, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, ArbitrarilyO I did give it a try. I fixed the citations. It should be okay now. Thanks. Raj2004 (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Excellent!! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor

I am requesting that you re-open this for it to gain more consensus otherwise I'm going to DRV.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ryulong! I'm not going to stop you from taking it to deletion review, but my suggestion would be to renominate each article individually. This will, not only as you suggested, help gain more consensus, but it will also gain a consensus that is specific to each individual. Happy editing my friend, take care. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm just going to prod tag each one, as that is a hell of a lot easier than opening up 30 separate AFD discussions that all say the same thing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Well it looks like they all went back through AfD anyways. Take care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Jason Upton

Hey man...I noticed that the Jason Upton Article was marked as AfD then deleted. I would like to work on a new page since the old did have a bunch of problems and a total lack of references. I probably wont be starting that project until next month, but wanted your opinion on how to make that article better or if you just believe it doesn't belong at all.Travisharger 16:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs)

Hi Travis! Unfortunately, consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Upton was three to one in favor of deletion. If you think that there are references that didn't surface during the deletion discussion you might consider seeing deletion review. Are there any references you can show me as an example? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

i tried....

Inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anastasia 1997, I suggest a page move from the incorrect title of Anastasia (1997 Russian film) to the correct one of The Secret of Anastasia.... and then a redirect to the actually sourcable production company UAV Entertainment. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and have closed as such since no one has opposed your stance. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks much. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Anytime! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Why was this page deleted?

"Satellite Image Comparison" ‎

This page has been targeted multiple times for deletion. It is a supporting page for the Water vapor article, and notes this in the page and in its page discussion. Additionally, the page also scientifically supports arguments in the discussion of Talk:Water vapor. It also, requests that people don't randomly slap tags for deletion in the page discussion as it is part of a larger project that is under large scrutiny and under constant update, including the page itself.

All of this is noted in the page discussion, and is apparent that the discussion page has been repeatedly ignored. Could you please reinstate this page and its discussion.

—Will research for food (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Also perusing the list of "desenters", at least one has been identified as a "sock puppet" by Wikipedia. —Will research for food (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Greetings friend! Unfortunately, there was clear consensus to delete the article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satellite Image Comparison) - is there something I can clear up for you? I'd be happy to! Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Water vapor is heavily sock-puppet/ip attacked. This page in question is a supporting page for Water Vapor, and was targeted for deletion 1 week after I stopped editing on all of wikipedia. If you feel you can't then don't, but could you move it over to my user space so I may work on it as it supports a larger group effort:
WikiProject: Meteorology and Weather Events
—Will research for food (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem Will, is that the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satellite Image Comparison resulted in a unanimous consensus to delete, because the subject is 'non-encyclopedic'. Do you dispute this consensus? Do you think that this consensus was wrongly founded? Let me know, and regards! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Copy of deleted article?

Hey Arbitrarily. Would you provide me a copy of List of longest-lasting empires, which was just deleted? SwarmTalk 11:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Swarm! May I first ask what you would like a copy for? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Right, I should have included that in my original post, sorry. I actually just got a copy from another admin, so don't worry about the request, but I'll still explain myself: The deletion discussion seemed a little...odd to me. In my opinion there wasn't a strong enough argument or consensus for delete, and I was considering requesting a deletion review, but I would rather review the article's content a little before I decided on that. The strongest delete argument was basically that since it was a list of empires, and there is no clear definition of what an "empire" is, the article was inherently original research and such an article could never be maintained. Anyway, I'm going to review it's content and think about it some more. Thanks. SwarmTalk 03:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! Take care friend! Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

List of BrainSurge episodes

Why you deleted brainsurge episodes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momos555 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Momos! List of BrainSurge episodes was deleted because of consensus to do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BrainSurge episodes. Let me know if you have any questions about this, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WILL YOU ADOPT ME?

:) please (DJO CODY (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

I'd be happy to! You can start by trying to add yourself to this list - let me know if you need help with this. Happy editing, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

British Royalty Hi Arbitrarily0/Archive/2010, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.

These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Please help us:

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
your welcome much, hope to hear from you some more ;-) Ikip 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Copy of Deleted Page

Hi, your in the list of admins who will provide copies of deleted pages. I was wondering, would you send me a copy of the deleted page Camponhoyle? I am working with several other editors to track down a sockpuppeteer so I would like it for evidence. Thanks Quiggers1P (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Quiggers1P, there's not much to restore. It contains one edit by User:Bogies gfhg jghmhj with the content "Camponhoyleing is when people are acused of suckpuppetry because they type camponhoyle on a page", and that's it. Hope that helped, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverted changes

Looking at the information displayed in the page Puerto Rico national basketball team, I thought it would be better to create the page Puerto Rico men´s national basketball team. I included my explanation of the why I did it at the Edit summary and the Discussion page. Since there are possibilities for a unified page with men´s, women´s and junior´s information, I did not wanted to just change the name, but added instead a redirection to the new page, with the "r with possibilities" clause. Since my changes were reverted, there is a duplicate of the page under the new name. What can we do? --Coquidragon (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Aye, I'm so sorry - feel free to revert my revision. Do take care, again, sorry. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you please write to User:5 albert square who also reverted my changes? She put in my user talk a Level 2 warning and accussed me of vandalism. I know it is done automatically but still... --Coquidragon (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Problem has been resolved! I´m sorry for any inconvenience.--Coquidragon (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Excellent! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer request

Could you please review my request again? --Saki talk 07:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry for the delay. Yes, I've responded there, thanks for letting me know. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autoreviewer

Hello Arbitrarily0, I wish to apply for the Autoreviewer rights as i believe its a waste of time for new pages i create to be double checked, but ultimately thats not for me to decide. Is the 75 edit count a requirement to qualify or just a general rule of thumb? I’m interested in applying, as I believe I meet the requirements for notability and citations. But I’ve only created 58 pages. Could you please go over my history and advise me on whether its worthwhile me applying. Kind regards Wiki ian 22:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ian, it sure looks like you're a good candidate for autoreviewer to me! Since User:UpstateNYer has already granted this permission to you, all that's left for me to do is to encourage you to keep creating good articles: nice work! Take care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar!!!

All Around Amazing Barnstar
For being the model of a Wikipedian that I want to be! The Arbiter★★★ 23:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Sir Wayne! Thank you very much - that's a incredibly thoughtful surprise that will be much appreciated for a long time. Maybe there's one heading your way in the future, but I can only guarantee it'll be when you least expect it. Take care, and don't hesitate to bring more discussions here; they are always most welcome! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Sir Wayne? It's been a while since I was Mr. Wayne. :) Hmm...I like Sir Wayne, though...maybe another username change? Nah... The Arbiter★★★ 01:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
;-) ...whatever you might like to call yourself, the point is: thank you! Take care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Thanks --Wexeb → 21:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Infonic

Protect, vandalism, please --Wexeb (Talk) 14:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wexeb! Please file a request at requests for page protection if the problem continues. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Croposition

It's pretty important, when you remove a PROD tag, that you explain why. Woogee (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Woogee! The PROD tag was contested at requests for undeletion (see section), where articles deleted via proposed deletion are automatically restored on request. User:Accounting4Taste (the user who tagged the article) has already been notified of it's restoration. Please let me know if I can clear anything else up about this, or if you have more concerns. Do take care, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
You ought to put a comment in the edit summary when you remove a prod. Woogee (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand you on this one Woogee. The edit summary "proposed deletion contested"[4] was intended to reference WP:UND, where the procedure is that articles deleted via proposed deletion can be restored even without a good rationale from the requesting user. I hope this helps, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the PROD tag can be removed without a reason, but it would certainly make a lot more sense, as well as being more friendly, if, when you remove the PROD tag, you say why. Agreed, you don't have to, but doing so is friendlier. Woogee (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The thing, Woogee, is that it's not under my own rationale to restore the page, but the rationale of the requester at WP:UND. For that reason, I tried to leave a concise summary that would both point to that request and cite the procedure for restoring pages deleted via proposed deletion. Does this help make more sense? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics tagging

Can you add to all the article in the Category:Physicist stubs with the template: {{Physics|auto=yes|class=stub|bio=yes}}. Thanks. --Siddhant (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Can do! I'll get around to this very shortly. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Ugh, sorry - 'technical difficulties' are really delaying this. Sorry about that, but I plan to have all the articles tagged by Wednesday. I hope this is okay, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I'll wait. Btw, what kind of 'technical difficulties'? Just curious. --Siddhant (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
AutoWikiBrowser (which the bot runs through) refuses to start-up properly on my machine. I'm trying to re-install it at the moment though. Don't worry, on my word, the tagging will get done. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems that the problem is more extensive than I thought (see here and here), but I'm trying to get to the bottom of it. So sorry about all this, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I enjoy editing, and have served as proofreader for a publishing company when we made corrections with a pencil! The technical part of things like aFd listings, and even listing my name on your page as an adoptee, totally confuses me. Could you list me on your page? (I have tried but it comes out incorrectly) And may I call on you if I have technical questions? I earned my doctorate before the advent of computer language. And I thank you very much. รัก-ไทย (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome! I've listed you on my user page, so feel free to ask me any questions as frequently as you'd like. I'm always glad to help out. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Naturoid

You relisted an AfD for further discussion. It's getting a little out of hand, may I ask you to review it and close if you feel sufficient interest has been raised? Thanks. (and yes I got sucked into it as well..) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Naturoid#Naturoid Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Is there any particular reason to close the discussion early? Normally discussions last an extra week after they've been relisted. Hopefully by that time the 'out-of-handedness' will be more clearly resolved. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Kylestafford/Robert Lawton

Did you combine my name with Robert A Lawton's? If so...why? I am NOT Robert Lawton....I WAS trying to restore Robert A Lawton's page... thanks Kylestafford (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The page is currently located in your userspace at User:Kylestafford/Robert A. Lawton so that you can make the appropriate changes (that being better expressing the importance or significance of the subject) there before moving it back to the article space. Let me know if you have any questions, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy day

  • Happy day of San Valentin. -----by Wexeb
    Happy day of San Valentin. -----by Wexeb
Thanks Wexeb! And a happy Valentine's day to you too! Cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

why did you delete miami beach community kollel?

129.171.237.152 (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi! The article was deleted due to consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miami Beach Community Kollel. Let me know if you have any questions about this, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Concordia University

removed hatnote - Why? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(P.S. Thanks for doing the move - I hadn't got around to making the request yet. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
Your welcome! The actual reason I removed it was because I thought the hatnote read "Concordia University redirects here" (not Concordia College). But now that I look at it, it still seems to be slightly repetitive because the next line reads "Concordia is the name of several universities, colleges and seminaries". Feel free to change it back though, whatever you think best. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
You make a good point. So good, in fact, that I'm convinced.
(Particularly given that I was tossing up how many and which of the other redirects should appear in the hatnote ... )
(And, of course, doing nothing is always the easiest short term option ;-)
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

By-the-way:

I would have thought that:

Your thoughts? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Second by-the-way: FYI: I see that a "move request" discussion has commenced on Talk:Concordia University (Montreal) Pdfpdf (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, we should probably wait on the discussion at Talk:Concordia University (Montreal)#Move? before fixing any of those queries above. I'll keep an eye on it, and thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Bag

You moved Bag (disambiguation) to Bag but Talk:Bag has a redirect to Talk:Bag (temp) which doesn't exist. Where is the "preserved" content? -Eekerz (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Eekerz! Unfortunately I don't think there is preserved content for Talk:Bag (the 'preserved content' in the edit summary refers to the history at now at Bag (disambiguation)). Is it possible you were looking for Talk:Bag (disambiguation)? Sorry for being so confusing, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Symbolism

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Symbolism (disambiguation) a different title by copying its content and pasting it into Symbolism. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No matter how much experience you have, you just never know when you'll be warned (issue clarified and resolved at User talk:R'n'B#Oh symbolism). Cheers! :) -Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Your eyes please....

In regards AFD1 and AFD2 about articles about a Fred Figglehorn movie, I pretty much ignored both articles at the time, as they were lacking in content, lacking in sources, and were a tad premature. What I DID do was rewrite an article from scratch to deal with the same subject. I then placed in the WP:Incubator to bide its time and be improved. Now that the film is in post-production and has gotten more press (as shown in this new version), and out of respect for your proper close, I would like you to review my version at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Fred: The Movie and give me your opinion. Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest ... your version looks excellent ... well done! Don't worry about my prior close, it was merely an attempt at determining a consensus. Clearly the article is up to snuff, and I suspect it would have little problems going through another AfD. Just say the word and I'll move the page for you if you'd like. Great job my friend, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
it would be terrific for it to leave incubation, and more specially with your blessing. So sure... go for it, and thanks. Best regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 Done - great work, as usual! Always a pleasure to have you drop by, and thanks so much for your contributions. Do take excellent care, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD of Libertarian Movement (Italy)

Hi... Just FYI, one of the keeps was the SPA who created the article and is also affiliated with the organization, and another was the same editor socking from an IP. IMO, the AfD should have been relisted. Cheers. --RrburkeekrubrR 00:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rrburke! I understand what you're saying, but two other keep !voters (that being User:Off2riorob and User:Defender of torch) seem to be in good standing. Coupled with the lack of deletion support after a full listing period, I thought closing the discussion as 'keep' would be the most reasonable. Is there another point that I might be missing? Thanks for taking the time to bring this up, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Arbitrarily0 -- thanks for replying. I guess my concern is part of a larger beef with the drift toward regarding deletion discussions principally as straw polls or head counts -- I was surprised and a little dismayed as I read the deletion discussion for the version of the article on Italian Wikipedia that over there they appear to decide deletion outcomes exactly this way, by an up or down vote. I hope we can avoid that here on EN, but I fear we may be moving in that direction, all claims to the contrary nowithstanding.
I understand that polling is integral to the AfD process, but deletion discussions have to be more than just vote tallies. I prefer EN's test of rough consensus because it permits the closing admin more discretion in order to assure that votes don't trump policy, and it obliges admins to evaluate arguments rather than just count heads. In this instance, for example, if you have a look at the keep "votes," you'll note that Off2riorob's contribution amounted to "I like COI editors" and WP:ITEXISTS, while Defender of torch's reasoning amounted to WP:ILIKEIT plus "you nominated this because you're a communist" or some other asinine nonsense. No syllogists they, neither response was particularly perspicacious, and neither addressed (or even attempted to address) the central problem, which is that there is still no evidence that the organization that is the subject of the article has received sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources to merit a standalone article.
The article creator attempted to address the problem (or to appear to address it to save the article from deletion) by adding sources to the article, but if you look at them in any detail you'll see that they suffer from the same defects as the other ones: they don't actually treat the subject of the article in any detail, so they don't add up to WP:SIGCOV. The coverage amounts mostly to passing mentions of the organization occurring in the context of articles on other subjects -- for example, an interview with a person, affiliated with the group but known principally for something else, in which his belonging to the group is mentioned in passing. I couldn't find one in which the Movimento Libertario was actually the subject of an article. In fact, some of the founders of the organization have a better claim to independent notability; the organization itself -- eh, not so much.
It's fairly clear to me that the article is a pretext for posting the group's manifesto on a high-profile website -- in bad English and excruciating detail. Because there is no significant coverage in secondary sources, there is nothing to make an article out of -- except primary sources worked over by OR and SYNTH, which is what the article amounts to in its present form. And there's the usual double-whammy: the lack of sources not only argues against the subject's notability, it prevents any reasonable prospect of improving the article and converting it into an encyclopedia article rather than a manifesto. It should probably been speedied G11 before it was allowed to grow legs. Since that didn't happen, I nominated it for deletion -- something I don't do frivolously or without having done my homework.
I agree there was no support for deletion in the discussion, but IMO the keep votes were discountable per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS:
  • One was from the creator of the article, an editor affiliated with the organization who, per WP:COI, ought to have been steering clear of the AfD debate anyway, discountable as a "new user id whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article" (WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS)
  • Another was from this same editor socking from an IP
  • Off2riorob's position was contradicted by an established guideline -- WP:COI -- and offered no suggestion as to why the guidleine ought to be set aside in this case nor any evidence to support his contention that the subject was notable
  • Defender of torch's position was merely an unfounded accusation of bad faith against the nominator that verged on a personal attack -- and, like Off2riorob's, offered no evidence to support his contention that the subject was notable
As the only substantive contribution to the deletion discussion was Atama's comment, it seems to me a better course of action would have been to relist the AfD to see if a genuine rough consensus might emerge. Cheers. --RrburkeekrubrR 13:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Alright Rrburke, I took another look at the discussion. User:Off2riorob stated "I got what looked to me in italian quite a lot of coverage from independant sources, not from the movement itself, I have added for that purpose a search template in the italian wording to the top of the article. I have not at this time yet translated any of them" and User:Defender of torch stated "Significant movement with enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability." Have you tried asking either of these editors for specific evidence? Off2riorob seemed especially willing. Were you at some point considering taking this to deletion review? Looking forward to your reply, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Arbitrarily0. Thanks for the second look. I'm not inclined to go to deletion review: there was clearly no consensus to delete and probably none likely to emerge. Naturally I did see those comments by Off2riorob and Defender of torch, but they were unaccompanied by any evidence to support the assertions: having sifted through every blessed one of the sources cited in the article, I have to confess it rankles a bit when other editors who haven't done so respond blithely with something along the lines of, "Well, I saw a bunch of Google hits, so it looks notable to me." Those sources they believe establish notability are no doubt the same ones I encountered doing the due diligence prior to nominating the article for deletion. The difference is I actually looked at their contents. This is a chronic problem in AfD discussions.
I think the best course of action is to go through the references in detail once again (argh!), remove all the OR and SYNTH from the article, delete all material and references that have nothing to do with the organization as such, and see what's left. I anticipate considerable weeping and gnashing of teeth. If somebody can improve it by finding significant coverage in secondary sources to establish notability, the problem is solved. If that doesn't happen after a decent interval has elapsed, I'll consider nominating it again.
Thanks again for having another look! --RrburkeekrubrR 21:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely. Thanks for your work on it, and consider holding some of those keep !voters accountable for helping to source the article ;) Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Permission to edit Linkin Park's page

I want to edit that page because Linkin Park exceeds the album sales from 50 millions and the actual sales are about more than 57 millions and also i want to edit the "Current Members" article in this page because the "drumer" Rob Bourdon and "bassit" David Pheonix Farrell's biography is not added kindly give me the permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anamekon (talk • contribs) 16:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done - just remember to cite references. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Hurricane Katrina fringe theories

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hurricane Katrina fringe theories. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sceptre (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My experience is that closing admins tend to not really change their minds. Thus, these days, I skip the step. So, yeah: I don't think the strength of the arguments was towards keeping. Sceptre (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
While it is true that some admins may seem to respond better than others, WP:DRV suggests contacting them prior for just that reason. In this particular situation, judging by your concerns, I would have definitely considered retracting the close and relisting the discussion. However, since the DRV has already been listed and discussed in, I suppose it can't hurt to let it go through. Just some food for thought, but certainly no harm done. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I really should've talked to you first, seeing as how the DRV listing is missing the point... Sceptre (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like the community seems all for keeping the article, so I'm not sure a relist would have done much either. But whatever, no big deal :) Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Sarre

I'm not going to drag it to deletion review just to get "no consensus", but how do two arguments for deletion and two for keep = keep? It'd be helpful if you could give a rationale when closing AfDs, so we can understand your reasoning. Fences&Windows 23:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ummmm, they don't ... wow, I'm sorry, wrong button or something? I'm not sure a trout could even cure me at this point ... Thanks for letting me know, but next time just shoot me :) -Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll have you shot at dawn by Jimbo and ArbCom! If admins were shot for making mistakes, there'd not be many of us left Fences&Windows 00:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

HELLO......

How to save my article proposed for deletion?What to do?Please ANSWERS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!{{{{{ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daznam (talk • contribs) 11:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The article you created is currently undergoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drago Boskovic, where you are welcome to voice your concerns. Good luck, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Rollback rights to Wexeb

He/her just deleted my latest edit ( a work in progress) on MY talk page.

I consider it vandalism.

How ironic.

Gatorinvancouver (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gator! It looks like it was just a mistake (especially since he was using Huggle) - just leave him a friendly note on his talk page. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


I don't know how friendly he/she considered my request to please stop. But I sure do not like somebody deleting parts of MY user page when Wikipedia guidelines urge me NOT TO DELETE parts of my user page but archive them instead.

In any case, after this edit (I think) I shall go back to improving Wikipedia by correcting small mistakes.

Or maybe I just picked the wrong topic.....

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

ACC open

You've got an open ticket on the account creation tool. Josh Parris 11:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done - thanks Josh! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Chirpy86/famous parakeets

Just wondering about the userfication of the above, as it seemed a pretty blatant hoax, so I am unsure how it could be improved once userfied? I'm not that up to speed with userfication, so don't know if it's pretty much 'anything goes' (excluding personal attacks etc). Quantpole (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure either, especially considering Wikipedia:Userfication is an essay. But Wikipedia:Userfication doesn't seem to have a problem with it, so I suppose it's okay as long as it stays in the userspace. Maybe the folks at miscellany for deletion have a better idea, if you'd like to try it there. I don't know :) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem you may be able to help with.

User:Wexeb has apparently recently been granted rollback. They have twice rolled back edits to Gary Busey without looking at the edit summaries and then accusing me of vandalism and threatening to block me (I reverted an earlier edit which caused the page not to make sense). I am not a brand new editor, I simply cannot log in at work. Wexeb also immediately erased my question about their rolling back, apparently without reading it (by the way, their talk page says they are offline and gives a message to everyone putting in a new section they are vandalising - yet things are reverted anyway. Are they using a 'bot?). I do not want to see Wexeb punished, but perhaps counseled on the proper way to rollback and to deal with other editors. I don't like being treated like this, when I do not feel I was wrong. Thank you. Triste Tierra (cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this has been taken care of and is under discussion (see User talk:Wexeb). Thanks for letting me know though, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD close

Could you elaborate a bit on your no consensus close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lionel Blackman? Is your feeling that there is no consensus as to whether Blackman is notable enough outside of being a political candidate and therefore we keep, or that there is no consensus that candidate bios should be redirected or deleted if they are not in general notable? I ask because, as I noted on the AfD, a discussion was recently held where it was determined that we would amend WP:POLITICIAN to deal with cases just like these, and the result of that was that candidate articles where the person is generally not notable should get redirected. I think that guideline trumps some of the keep arguments, particularly since one of those supporting the keeping of the article was the only person who did not support the change to WP:POLITICIAN, and in a way is ignoring previous consensus when arguing "I still consider that PPCs for major parties should be kept until the election is over." We do need standards for these kind of articles, and I think this AfD close goes against the standard that was recently agreed to and therefore unfortunately muddies the waters, particularly since no rationale was provided. If you think the "no consensus" relates to whether or not Blackman passes the general notability guideline then you should say so, but really only one editor made that argument and I don't think that was sufficient to counterbalance the four editors who wanted to delete or redirect and the one keep !voter who suggested that Blackman likely was not notable in the absence of his candidacy. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! I suppose it's all about perspective Bigtime; two of the !voters supported keeping, two supported deletion, and one supported redirecting. While the keep arguments may not have been super-high quality, they were still argued to the end in the discussion, and can't completely be discounted. Since neither most of the participants supported deletion, neither most of the participants supported keeping, I would have a hard time closing it is either. As far as redirecting goes, I would highly encourage a discussion to be opened for that (on the article's talk page). Does this help clear things up? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid it doesn't actually. For one thing there were three editors who supported deletion, since the nominator also counts as well. My !vote for a redirect was obviously much more akin to a !delete vote, and when considered as a whole it means 2/3 of those who commented did not support retaining the material as a standalone article (that's exactly the way a closing admin needs to think about AfDs like this, rather than suggesting the vote for redirect and the votes for deletion were in total opposition to each other, that's hardly the case). So the numbers are somewhat significant, but obviously AfDs are not about numbers solely or even primarily. Unfortunately you did not respond to the central part of my comment/question above about WP:POLITICIAN and the recent consensus as to how we handle these exact sort of articles, of which we can expect many since this is a major election year in both the U.S. and the UK. My main concern was that your close did not even acknowledge that current guidelines seem to be firmly on the side of those advocating that the article not exist, and that those voting to keep did not engage with this guideline (indeed one willfully ignored it and basically said "I don't like that guideline," which they also said when discussing the proposed change on the guideline talk page weeks ago when they were the only person who objected to it—this is hardly insignificant, obviously). I think your response above is far too vague and suggests you might have been looking at numbers (though you did not describe these accurately) more than strength of argument. It's also worth pointing out that simply because something is "argued to the end in the discussion" does not automatically make it valid, and indeed it's obviously your job as a closing admin to separate the wheat from the chaff and to set aside (or give less weight to) arguments which have little or no grounding in the standards of the encyclopedia. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Good, good! They way I saw it, the question in the discussion was whether or not the subject fell under the jurisdiction of WP:POLITICIAN. Assuming I was correct about this (trout me right now if I'm not), if he does fall under WP:POLITICIAN then the article should be redirected (as you stated in the discussion, as per WP:POLITICIAN). If not, however, then he must somehow meet WP:GNG to be kept. With this in mind, let's 're-look' at the discussion:
Since I feel like WP:POLITICIAN seems to prevent deletion in this case, and that the subject somewhat arguably meets WP:GNG, I just had a hard time closing it with a consensus (especially since a no consensus close would more welcome a redirect discussion). Do you feel me? :) If not, just say so again, and trout liberally. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
First of all thanks for being so responsive and open to a critique of your close, not all admins would react in the same way and I appreciate it.
The preceding is a much better explanation of your thinking but I still disagree with your logic pretty strongly. Whether or not the subject "arguably" meets the GNG is not the question—of course he "arguably" does. The question is whether there is no consensus that he does not, which is what you are really claiming given your close and your comments above. As I said only one editor actually argued that he passed the GNG, four editors argued (implicitly or explicitly) that he did not, and one other editor "suspected" that there might be "slight notability" but also said "being a councillor is NN," so I do not interpret that to mean they were at all arguing that Blackman passed the GNG. Indeed it's quite obvious that the core of their vote was "I still consider that PPCs for major parties should be kept until the election is over," and the fact is that should be disregarded because that is not what our guideline currently says, and indeed the editor commenting was the only one to object to that guideline and seems to be importing that general objection into an AfD.
So what we're left with to my mind is an assertion on your part that one editor arguing for "keep" based on the GNG is enough to result in a "no consensus" even with four editors flatly disagreeing and another at least in part disagreeing while overall not providing a valid keep rationale. It's also worth pointing out that with this comment (at the end of an exchange) the one editor arguing for passing the GNG seemed to implicitly suggest that policy was not on their side, but said "I can't say I'm convinced when the outcome is the loss of information that's useful and made accessible by Wikipedia" (see to WP:USEFUL and WP:VALINFO on why this is irrelevant) and "If an organisation is notable, it's not unreasonable to assume the notability of someone deemed suitable or with the authority to become the head of it, however often the leader may change, in the absence of a quota for the absolute number of articles or volume of content" which very much goes against our guidelines. Given all that I don't think you've provided a tenable reading of consensus with respect to whether or not the subject pases the GNG—there was only one argument in favor of that and it was quite weak.
Given that the consensus is that Blackman does not pass the GNG (at least in my view), the best course is to simply apply WP:POLITICIAN to the situation as several commenters suggested. You point out that WP:POLITICIAN "seems to prevent deletion in this case," but are ignoring the fact that it also quite pointedly prevents keeping, does it not? The preference is clearly for a redirect, which in reality is much more akin to a deletion that a keep. These kind of AfDs are quite common, i.e. where the overriding sentiment is to not have the article and most !votes are actually to delete, but then one or two people will point out "actually we could just redirect to ______ as a plausible search term." Often the original delete !voters don't come back to address that option, but it's fully within an admin's remit when closing (and indeed many times they should do so) to say "consensus is to not have this article, suggestion to redirect is reasonable and it's unlikely to be controversial among delete voters who are the majority, thus redirecting to ______." Basically implementing a bit of common sense rather than thinking of redirect and delete comments as wildly different—9 out of 10 times they are basically the same.
I'm considering taking this to DRV (which I don't believe I've ever done and don't particularly feel like doing) not just because I think you misread consensus in one particular case, but because I think this sets a bad precedent. As a result of AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tammy Jennings and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Jones (politician) (obviously I closed the latter) an effort was made to come up with a standard for how to handle political candidate articles. That was accomplished with little controversy, and indeed if applied AfDs should not really be necessary (the article is simply redirected after it is created if the candidate is not already notable, and we don't need a long debate about every single case). Since I think there was clearly a consensus that WP:GNG was not met in this case the article should have been redirected, and as that has not happened it sets a bit of a precedent whereby AfDs of candidate articles that get a few keep !votes could be closed as "no consensus," which is exactly what we were trying to avoid. As I said we're going to be dealing with a lot of these in 2010, and the whole point of creating a standard was to avoid situations where one candidate article was kept and another deleted, rather the goal was for the same approach to be taken with all.
Sorry for the length of this, I have no idea where all these words came from! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Fist of all, you're welcome! Since I find myself closing quite a few AfD's, it's important for me to learn how to better do my job (by talking about things such as this). Second of all, I'll try to respond to the rest of your comment as soon as I get a chance - but don't worry, I'll get around to it. :-) Thanks for your patience and sorry for the delay. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I'll wait for a reply, though it's possible I might open a DRV at some point if you don't have a chance to respond for awhile. Regardless of this discussion I think a DRV may be needed, at least to my mind. Obviously I'll let you know if I decide to open one. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, whoops, it didn't take that long after all :) Anyways, here's your options:
  1. Boldly redirect the article and discuss the redirect on the talk page
  2. Allow me to amend the AfD's closure to redirect (because in hindsight, some of the delete !votes should have probably at least been considered as redirect !votes, considering the stipulation at WP:POLITICIAN)
  3. Take the discussion to deletion review
The advantage to deletion review is that you might get more closure on the issue (although it's possible my close would be endorsed), if that's what you're looking for. Or maybe you'd rather just have me revisit my close, it's completely up to you. No offense taken, of course, if you use deletion review... you might imagine I've been there before ;D Let me know, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, I forgot to reply here for a bit. Thanks for being so receptive to rethinking this. If you're okay with number two (amending to redirect) I would say that is the best option. But really only if you think it's the right thing to do, I don't want to have badgered you into changing your mind or anything remotely like that. The only advantage to deletion review at this point would be to clue some additional folks into the general situation regarding candidates and WP:POLITICIAN which would be good, but I'm a firm believer in saving community time and resources whenever possible, so if a DRV is not really necessary it's best to avoid putting a couple dozen pairs of eyes on it that could be looking at other issues. I very much appreciate you laying out these options to resolve this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome! Well I was about to start changing my close when I noticed this link was cited on the article. What are your thoughts on it? Having seen that the article has undergone some editing since the close, I have a feeling that it might be brought to deletion review either way. Do you get the gist of the quandary I'm talking about? I'm not sure what the best course of action is from here. Looking forward to hearing from you again (although don't rush!), cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I do see the quandary, and thanks for pointing that out. Given that source I think we should maybe (after all this!) just let sleeping dogs lie. Personally I think I would still support deletion even with that source, but I think a general discussion (if restarted) among a dozen or so random community members would probably result in a keep or a no consensus given the relatively low bar we have for notability. Arguably he passes the GNG which moots the guideline at WP:POLITICIAN. While I still think the original close should have been different, I'm a million miles away from being process wonky enough to establish that fact via another discussion when a new AfD discussion would likely be different given the changes to the article. So I don't think it's worth a DRV, and I don't think there's much harm leaving things as are. All I'd ask is that, as an AfD regular, you spread the word (if it comes up) about the "redirect political candidates" guideline at WP:POLITICIAN as that is of recent provenance, the issue will probably come up again at AfDs throughout the year, and the guideline can save quite a lot of time if people follow it and just boldly redirect those kind of articles at least until the election. So in the end all those words to end up back where we started! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree. In closing future discussion such as this one, I'll assuredly keep in mind this new-ish intricacy on WP:POLITICIAN. And my apologies for all of that above. If I had made a more accurate close to begin with it all could have been avoided, but I'm happy to say that I'm a better editor because of it ... so thanks for that! Best regards Bigtime, take excellent care! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Good idea in creating this editnotice; I don't know why we didn't think of it earlier. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nyttend!!! Have a great day, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Request Article Review

{{helpme}} Hi Arbitrarily0 - Per the comment on notability, I've edited the MyBuilder article on my specials page (26 Feb) to include multiple references. Can I please have it reviewed now that I've added references? Many thanks for your input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RKruh (talk • contribs)

Hi RKruh! The article may very well be ready, but consider asking NawlinWiki (talk · contribs), the user who deleted the article, first. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

ansver....

I deleted my article From Wikipedia. still be found on google.how be deleted from Google —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plexio2 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, I believe that by the way Google indexes their pages, it should be updated not to display the article soon. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Undelete music network

Thanks for that. It looks like Ill be doing a diamb soon. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome! Good luck, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Other sources linking to deleted articles on Wikipedia

Do you know what happens when another site reproduces an article on their site that has been deleted from Wikipedia, but says it is sourced from Wikipedia? The reason I ask you is because I noticed you responded to this post :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Ananta_Das_Babaji about a deleted article, but I've seen that it appears here: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Ananta-Das-Babaji and at the bottom of the page says it's a Wikipedia article, but links to the deleted page. I've seen this happen in a few instances with different articles, do you know if Wikipedia does anything about it or it doesn't matter? Thanks, MistyMisty333 (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I must admit, Misty, that I'm not very familiar with how Wikipedia mirror sites work. However, I would guess that they update their articles regularly (rather than instantly), so that articles deleted on Wikipedia will stick around longer on mirrors. You can take a look at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks to try to learn more about it. I hope this has helped, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Simplelinux deletion

hi, I would love to know why you deleted Simplelinux article, I see all saying it notability or something, can I preserve it in the Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farizluqman (talk • contribs) 12:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fariz! The article was deleted because there was consensus to do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simplelinux. The discussion came to the conclusion that the subject of the article did not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and so was deleted. Let me know if there's anything else I can clarify for you, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Decembersunset

I saw you gave the user [Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed&diff=347392537&oldid=347392427 permission] to upload images for the TVXQ article and the articles relating to it. However, the user has uploaded various WP:COPYVIO images and has licensed them under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. I'm not looking for them to get blocked or anything, but since you were the one who gave the user the okay, I just thought you could explain to them how uploading images work on Wikipedia as oppose to other Wikis. MS (Talk|Contributions) 01:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I see that you've left a number of notices on their talk page. I suggest we give the editor some time to respond to those first, no? Also note that User:Decembersunset is now autconfirmed. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Lloyd Smith (2nd nomination)

Hey there. There is some addition information relating to this article that wasn't made public during the AfD for some reason. ticket:2010021410008952 has more information. If you don't have access to this, would you mind if I undid your closure and add my own instead? I would offer to share the information, but unfortunately, the Wikimedia Privacy Policy prevents me from doing so. NW (Talk) 03:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, go right ahead, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much :) NW (Talk) 03:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem! Take care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks "Boss"

I already had one source in the DrV and the other I felt was probably a PR-respin but upon rereading it, I'm not sure so I mentioned in in the DrV. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem! And thanks for taking time to comment at the deletion review. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


Deletion review for Jason Upton

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jason Upton. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I don't understand why this article was deleted. Jason Upton is a Christian artist known worldwide and considered influential by many as the links below testify.

Based on Wikipedia's criteria, an artist is recognized as being notable when he:

  • Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.

Here are some of the many articles available on the internet: http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/worship/features/260 http://www.soulshine.ca/reviews/albumReview.php?arid=668 http://www.crosswalk.com/music/1116560/ http://www.crosswalk.com/music/1110242/ https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/music/reviews/2002/yourlovebrokethrough.html

  • 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).

Integrity Music and EMI CMG (includes Sparrow Records, etc.) are a major music labels, regrouping notable artists and bands as Chris Tomlin, Underoath, KJ-52, Paul Baloche, Kirk Franklin, and many more. (N.B. : The affirmation on itickets.com from the President of Integrity Music is enforcing Jason Upton's notability.) http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-People-Jason-Upton/dp/B000RN37V4, http://www.itickets.com/news/index.html?detail=1&id=962, http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/you-are-one-performance-track/id320166453, http://ca.music.yahoo.com/release/43550306

I suggest that this article be rewritten as soon as possible.Cgadbois (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As User:Stifle noted at the deletion review, it's normally preferred to contact the closing administrator beforehand (as I suspect things could have been resolved without it). Now that the discussion has been listed, however, it's probably best to just let it continue. No worries, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, no offense, I am quite new with this process. Cgadbois (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh don't worry about it all! You're fine, take care! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arbitrarily0! I'm not sure I understand the process of userfication, i read the related page but I don't get it. Is it that I need to present an updated version of User:Cgadbois/Jason_Upton? To whom, where? The updates will permit to the article to be republished? I know I have a lot of question, to be honest I'm frenchspeaking and I seldom come to edit in the English section. Cheers! Cgadbois (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Cgadbois, I meant to leave a note here first. Here's all you need to know: simply work on the article as much as you see fit (sourcing content, etc.), and then when you feel it is ready (when it is shown that "significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article"), make another listing at deletion review. Let me know of any points I can clarify, and good luck! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
That's clear enough for me, Thanks. Cgadbois (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Industrial design

Hi, I read that you have a bot (Arbitrarily0Bot) working with AWB. Could you add the {{WikiProject_Industrial_design}} banner to 97 talk pages BASED on their article having a Category:Computer-aided design (no subcategories please) tag. Is that something you do?... ZooFari began our project tagging and got there, then he retired... Thanks if you can, --AlainR345Techno-Wiki-Geek 16:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alain! I'd be glad to help! The only problem is that a certain bug relating to the bot is yet to be fixed, but I'd be happy to start the tagging as soon as it's cleared up. See the discussion at User talk:Magioladitis#Exceptional work if you're interested. So sorry about this, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
OK Mr. I see that discussion. But if I understand it is now 'cleared up'... Also that same Magioladitis did some other tagging for us in the last hours. So are you all set my friend? --AlainR345Techno-Wiki-Geek 18:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Great, then I should be able to test out Arbitrarily0Bot shortly. Just to be clear, you'd still like only the articles in Category:Computer-aided design to be tagged? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Yep, the reasoning here is that CAD is a fact of life in Industrial design today (in fact you will observe that CAD IS already a subcategory of Industrial design in the Wikipedia tree). On the other hand, I feel that going through the 2 subcategories of CAD: 'CAD file formats' and 'Computer-aided design software' becomes too specialized and is/would be better handled by computer-oriented WikiProjects. I must note that I'm especially fond of this tagging job of yours as it is the last Bot one for this fairly new project before we ask Xenobot for auto-assessment. Go for it and thanks! --AlainR345Techno-Wiki-Geek 20:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 Done - 97 articles tagged - there you go, sorry for the delay. Let me know if there's any other areas I can tag for you, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


Fabulous... we're now waiting for Xenobot to kick in tomorrow. Automated tagging for the ID project has now reached as far as was possible I guess. Now that your talking about 'areas', there could possibly be one extra auto-tagging, but I don't know if it's doable with AWB; it's related to the fact that ID started recently a new Design portal related to ID, Interior design, and Graphic design.
Therefore, for the pool of all articles having either:
  • a) a {{WikiProject_Industrial_design}} banner on their talk page OR
  • b) a Category:Interior design tag (or subcategory) on their page:
    • 1) IF not present, put this line in its proper place in the article:
==See also==
    • 2) Then put this line (IF not present) under the See also section (which will by then always exist by virtue of 1)...)
{{Portal|Design|Design_portal_logo.jpg}}


Is that something that can be done? (For GD we'll let them do their own stuff) --AlainR345Techno-Wiki-Geek 22:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as far as I know, AutoWikiBrowser isn't equipped to handle that task. It might be worth looking into at bot requests though, I'm not sure. Sorry I'm not much help for this, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Teufel III

Two keep !votes that don't cite any policy and didn't respond to refutation and one extensively argued delete !vote seems to add up to "Relist for more thorough discussion" rather than "keep," no? THF (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That is correct, but in this particular case I'm not sure that the keep !votes are to be discounted as such. Nevertheless, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because it's Tuesday - cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Blanning

The admin who deleted BZPower (which was up for undeletion), User:Samuel Blanning, does not edit any more. TN05 15:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, then you may proceed to deletion review if you think it's appropriate. Let me know if you have any questions, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

Hi. I have inserted the following remark in the "Richard Dawkins" entry:

This view has been rebuffed by other scientists arguing that Darwin's inherent claim, ratio is a perfect tool to fathom 'reality' is out of kilter even within the house of science (challenged e.g by quantum theory and neurobiology), and that intuition, e.g. religious intuition, can be another tool to fathom particular aspects of 'reality', exemplified for instance by the intuition of mastergrade extreme sports athletes called "flow"[1].

It is visible only when I am logged in, not otherwise. Any help appreciated Falk55 (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! The reason for this is that another editor has reverted your changes (see here). I would suggest that you bring up your concerns on the article's talk page, at Talk:Richard Dawkins. Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Atlas Design

Hello again! I wrote you earlier about the Atlas Design page. I will try to rewrite the page so you can take a look at it later. I have a question though. After I´ve done this will it be possible to do a search on google and find the wikipedia page? I´m not sure I understand the difference between what I´m doing now and what I did the first time. Thanks so far! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlrmpr (talk • contribs) 08:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Altrmprl, as for the Google search, I believe it will be indexed by Google, but it will probably not be one of the first results by searching for "Atlas Design". The difference in what you're doing now is that you're writing it in your userspace at User:Atlrmpr/Atlas Design (so that it won't be speedily deleted so easily), and that you're going to write it so that it's more neutral and less of an advertisement (I can help with this). Good luck and cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I rewrote the Atlas Design page as you told me and now I just want to know if it´s ok? I couldn´t see it on the mainpage. Let me know if there is anything else I have to change. Thanks so far! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlrmpr (talk • contribs) 08:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is my suggestion, Atlrmpr: try to incorporate reliable secondary sources into the article. Since the article currently looks almost exactly the same as when it was deleted, it will need citations to back up its claims and to assert notability. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

AFD: Agency Republic

Hey,

You closed AFD:Agency Republic as keep - but I think maybe a relist would be better?

The arguments for keep were based on the sourcing, but no one weighed in after the comments at the end (mine and another) which suggest that the limited interest and circulation primary sources were are the same two articles across different mirrored news sites. (They are all owned by the same company, all link to each other in the footer, etc).

Indeed, the same user created the article from a cut-and-paste as well as locating the article's "multiple sources". (The changes you link to were simply reformatting of existing sources added by the article creator.) WP:DUCK, in my opinion, would suggest that this was done intentionally to give the article the appearance of notability based on mulitiple sources.

I think more time to develop a consensus would be better here - what do you think? Addionne (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, well let's talk about it a bit. By looking at the changes since the nomination, I saw that there were two references added, them being campaignlive.co.uk and marketingmagazine.co.uk. When combined with the rest of the sources in the article, does this not satisfy general notability guideline, as "a topic [that] has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? I understand you made a comment about this already in the discussion, but it can't hurt to lay it out here again. Thanks for approaching me about this, and looking forward to hearing back from you, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem - I figured it was better to talk here than to go through the hassle of relisting or going through a deletion review or anything crazy like that. The fact about the article is there are just too many connections for it to sit right with me. It seems as though the only news outlets that report about Agency Republic are Brand Republic - the company responsible for issuing a majority of their awards - and other news sites that are the same company as Brand Republic. (Marketing, Campaign and Brand Republic among others - check their websites for evidence of this).
Obviously this source as a clear bias in reporting on the winner of the awards they sponsor - and no one else seems to have picked up the Brand Republic awards or their winners as newsworthy. In my mind, this makes them neither multiple, nor independent. The other awards (webbys, one show, etc) are limited in scope and receive very little press - certainly not enough to pass notability on winners / nominees. Beyond that, these sites only mention Agency Republic, there are no features or articles.
Addionne (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Very interesting indeed! Can you provide some specific evidence that the reporting companies are related and that they have a bias/deal/relationship towards Agency Republic? By the way, here's two more other tidbits for investigation: AAR appoints Agency Republic's Marshall as head of digital and Farfar founder joins Agency Republic. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Simply looking at the footer page at any of the news sites shows that they are related to each other - part of Haymarket Media Group. (Including one of the two links you provided above as well). Though I can not find a direct link to Agency Republic is related directly to this group, it seems suspect that Haymarket media promotes AR so heavily while no one else does. (Again, WP:DUCK) Addionne (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Does Farfar founder joins Agency Republic have a "Haymarket" link? Here's some more to look into (it doesn't look like any of these are affiliated with Haymarket and the such): Agency Republic wins Bud Light digital brief, Agency Republic scoops six figure Samaritans business, Agency Republic makes six new appointments, and a company report. Additionally, these two articles, Who will be company of the year? and London Agency Dares Expansion in N.Y. give mention to Agency Republic. Let me know what you think, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

BrainPOP

Hi, Arbitrrarily0. I saw that you closed the deletion discussion regarding this article. Do you agree with the deletion from the article of the images of Tim and Moby? If so, no problem, but if not, please let me know how to proceed to restore them. Thanks! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Silvers! I'm not sure I entirely understand your query, so please let me know if this isn't what you're looking for: some of the files were deleted because of discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 March 4. I would recommend that you ask the administrator who deleted the files for advice (note that the discussion I closed pertained only to the article, not to its images). Did this help? Please don't hesitate to tell me if it didn't, best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Millau-Viaduct-France-20070909.JPG

Hi! Thanks for answering my request on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 4. However, I made a mistake when copypasting the name of the file to be restored. "My" picture is File:Millau-Viaduct-France-20070909.JPG; it should be identical to commons:File:Millau-Viaduct-France-20070909.jpg. The picture you restored, File:Millau-Viaduct-France-2-20070909.JPG, is another picture of the same bridge by the same user, so the problem is exactly the same. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done - alright, I took your word for it on this one. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
You're most welcome, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Boardman

You closed this as delete; since then a number of SPA accounts have been putting it in again, under various versions of his name, and getting them deleted G4. As I did one of the G4 deletions, the fans are agitating at me. One of the new versions contained extra sources, and I put it in the Incubator at WP:Article Incubator/Mark Boardman and told TVfanaticlady (talk · contribs) on her talk page that when she thought it was good enough she should approach you as closing admin, and if she could not convince you take it to DRV. Instead another SPA, Celebrityreview (talk · contribs), popped up with another version. So I have protected the title for the moment, and will refer the author, and an IP who is complaining on my talk page, to my earlier message to TVfanaticlady. This is to warn you to expect the fan club.

In fact, looking again at the Incubator version, I see that the extra interview which I thought was perhaps a significant source is not - I mistook it for an interview with Boardman, but it is actually with someone else, Dave Berry, and Boardman is not mentioned at all in the interview, only in one of the fan comments at the bottom. So it is scraping the barrel, and I don't think the incubated article is any better than the AfD'd one.

If they should manage to convince you, by all mean undo my protection. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good John, thanks for letting me know! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

You are a good sysop.

If Wiki in Portuguese had good managers in this matter of elimination, and good rules too, half the problems that happened there would never have happened. Quintinense (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapuah junction stabbing

This afd in which you participated is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 12.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Paradigm City

Hi. Thanks for doing the merge of Paradigm City. This is just a reminder to tag the redirect with {{R from merge}} to prevent a future RfD. The {{Copied}} template is also good to use. Flatscan (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Flatscan! Thanks for letting me know about this! As far as {{copied}} goes though, do you think it's necessary when there's an {{oldafdfull|result='''merge to [[destination]]'''}} in place (see Talk:Paradigm City for an example)? Just wondering, and thanks again, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that it's better to have both, since they provide non-redundant information. Sometimes the "merge" is done by redirecting only – without copying any content – due to redundancy or other reasons. Flatscan (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Right, sounds good to me! I wonder if somehow {{oldafdfull}} could be updated so that when result=merge, it displays the {{copied}} notice. Anyways, thanks again! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Thank you very much for granting my rollback request. I will be careful not to use rollback to revert good faith edits or to use it for edit-warring. Thanks again, Megan|talkcontribs 15:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You're most welcome! I'm sure you'll do fine, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/In closing

Hey, hope all's well. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/In closing was breaking the relisting script, so I've deleted it pending a more developed solution. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and hope all is well with you too! It's no problem at all, I've fixed the link here and created a much simpler version of the old version at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In closing (note that, on certain days, such as today, the deletion log 'in closing' is too large to be transcluded). I'm not sure why that relist problem occured, but thanks for taking care of it. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Updating about me, so many things have changed!

Thanks GeneralCheese! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, quick question

I'm still fairly new to all this, but what does this mean:

(User rights log); 20:41 . . Arbitrarily0 (talk | contribs) changed rights for User:N432138 from Confirmed users to (none) (autoconfirmed)

N432138 (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! This means that the 'confirmed flag' has been removed from your account because you are now autoconfirmed. Does this make sense? Don't worry, this won't affect your editing in any way. Let me know, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks much. forever learning... N432138 (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

For all the refunds you've given

The Admin's Barnstar
For your diligent attention to WP:REFUND, a venue to which I had planned to pay close attention (but have failed). I see that you've taken the torch and carried it well. Thank you, and keep up the good work. –xenotalk 21:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, thanks Xeno! I always assumed it was a thankless job, but apparently not! I can't thank you enough for your appreciation and encouragement! Take most excellent care and my best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Requesting WikiProject tagger please

Can I request your bot for Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park and Category:WikiProject South Park Thank you! Okip 03:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, is there something in particular you'd like me to tag? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding two recent AfDs

Hi, Arbitrarily0

I'd like to have a word with you about result of two AfDs that you have closed a couple of days ago: (1) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peek-A-Boo Poker and (2) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubble Bath Babes.

I am afraid I find the closure result somewhat questionable, since if you look again, you will see that none of the participants that supported Keep have been able to prove the notability of the article. So, I believe having Keep as the result, per Wikipedia policy, is quite unwarranted. Therefore, one would expect that a closure result should be any one of Merge, Redirect or Delete. (Although I initially was in favor of deletion, now I am convince that merger is a perhaps valid outcome.)

Would you please kindly reconsider your decision? Fleet Command (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the next step in discussion would be opening up merge discussions on the article's talk pages, or at least that's what the AfD consensuses pointed towards, no? Let me know if you have any questions or want clarification, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

hello

hi! I was in touch with you a week or so ago in regards to the article 'New Rochelle Council on the Arts', however, it was through a different account named Nrartshistory. I have not been able to re-access that account since then and my password does not seem to work. Therefore, I have created a new account which I am using now - nrarts, and I am hoping that this is acceptable given the circumstances. I figured the original account can be redirected to this one. Please advise me as to whether or not this account swap is acceptable, or not. I am going to re-post the article I had written and will make sure to follow up by adding to its content (with specific mention of past exhibits, and contributions to the community at large). Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrarts (talk • contribs) 00:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I don't see any problems, just consider using {{FormerAccount|Nrarts}} on the user page of your old account. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Império da Praça Seca

In your opinion, now the article may return at the principal domain? Quintinense (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure Quintinense, but I would reccomend that your next step would be asking SatyrTN (talk · contribs), the administrator who deleted the page, if it is yet fit for the mainspace and if they would consider moving it for you. Good luck and cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Feenixpawl

Hi, I am the user Joshsoon where the page 'Feenixpawl' was orginally made under. The version is now ready. Would it be possible for page to now be moved back to Feenixpawl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshsoon (talk • contribs) 12:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, sorry for the delay! The page has been moved to Feenixpawl as you suggested. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You know...

I thanked you at my talk page for your kindness with the barnstar, but I really just had to come by and do it again. It means a lot that you shared that moment with me. :) I'll treasure it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it's the least I could do for someone who's had such a lasting impact on me. Thanks so much again! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whose Line Is It Anyway? (U.S. TV series)

This may or may not be too early, but could you close this? There is overwhelming support to keep the article. Plus, the AfD nominator is just flat out forum shopping. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, 'speedy keep' can only be applied when there is unanimous support for keeping (note that Quiddity !voted 'merge'). Therefore, it's probably most appropriate to let this run through the full listing period. Thanks for bringing this to my attention though, I have voted :) Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Deletion debates

Hi, I'm a little confused about your recent removal of AfD yesterday from this template. I recently added this link to the template because it got dropped in a recent template overhaul, although it was very useful. I have accessed this page numerous times from this template. Unlike AfD today, AfD yesterday provides a full day summary, and it is often useful to access at the beginning of the day when the AfD today page is nearly empty. I'm not too familiar with template editing; is there a way to add it to the template that doesn't cause it to stretch? ThemFromSpace 21:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi hi! All I meant by the edit summary is that the 'yesterday' link isn't ideal, just because it considerably increases the width of the helpbox (see the comparison):
Articles • (today, in closing)
Articles • (today, yesterday, in closing)
This certainly isn't a big deal, so feel free to add it back - I was just working towards trying to condense its size a little bit. Let me know your thoughts, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Christine Shin

I just incorporated your merge of My Fake Husband into the corrected temp-article at Talk:Christine Shin/Temp. Who gets to review the temp article, replace the original with the improved, and then remove the copyvio tag from the article? Or shall I do the incorporating myself and wait for someone else to remove the CV tag? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that whole thing is a confusing mess. I decided to just move your temporary version over the copyvio version (and then merged the histories) - hopefully this wasn't too bold and didn't break too many rules :) ... please let me know if it did! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed.... quite confusing, specially having to do a decent merge ino a CV-tagged article... Which is why I informed you of my use at the temp of your nice merge. Since copyvio was addressed, there is no point in having left a tag that would mislead readers. And dependent on the answer to my question above, I might have done the same thing myself. Well done. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Michael! And let me tell you that it's always a pleasure to have you stop by! Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I hate having to slough the grunt work off onto you guys with the tools... but thank you very much in turn. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I know what you mean - just remember that I'll always be happy to help, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. There may still be problems. I left a note for the original tagger at User talk:Racepacket#Christine Shin. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for letting me know. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

God Is in the TV Zine

Thanks for sorting out the right version - I could have sworn I'd done that! The trouble with using "Show preview" conscientiously is, you sometimes find long after that you never actually pressed "Save page." Regards. JohnCD (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no problem at all - I'm actually not sure exactly what happened there ... part of the issue was that we both restored different parts of the history at the same time XD ... no matter, take good care! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and also, thanks for doing such a great job at requests for undeletion - it's greatly appreciated! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Josh Kassel

...has been restored (along with the history). Good work! Black Kite 22:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sarah York

Deletion review is rarely worth one's time. "No consensus" means "keep for a while and nominate it in a few months while we wait for consensus." Is that so bad? Bearian (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Good, that's why I asked - whether or not deletion review would even change the closure, I don't know, but I agree it's probably not worth all that time. Thanks for getting back to me, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi to my mentor

Some time back I contributed to an article Johannes Maas (missionary). I had a disagreement with another editor (over a detail on religion), who saw I had contributed much to that article, and he nominated it for deletion (I think out of spite). There was no consensus, but the second time the response was scant, and it was deleted. (You can find it in the archives, I think) I would like to write a new article Johannes Maas. However, that name redirects to Johannes Leonardus Maas. Is there a was to change this so I can use "Johannes Maas" for a new article? Thank you so much.รัก-ไทย (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Rak-Tai! First of all, before you begin a new article, I would recommend that you contact User:Sandstein, the administrator who deleted the page after consensus was found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johannes Maas (missionary) (2nd nomination). Ask him if he would allow you to start a draft in your userspace. Please let me know if you have any questions, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello Arbitrarily0,  Abu Torsam  has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello, I am new to wikipedia and looking for mentor who can guide me, hence searching for adopters, i saw your profile on Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters,& thought you might be right person. i would be grateful to you if you could be one & help me in understanding the concepts and make me learn how to contribute in rightful manner to wikipedia. Waiting for reply.(  Abu Torsam  21:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

Hi Abutor! I'd be happy to adopt you! Please take free reign of my talk page, asking as many questions (no matter how small or large) as you wish! Looking forward to our correspondence, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

Did you also update the archiving, or do I need to look at that tomorrow?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Urg, thanks for mentioning that - I forgot to contact you about what to do. But to answer your question, no, I haven't yet updated the archiving. You're welcome to do it, or just point me in the right direction and I'd be happy to take care of it as well. Just let me know, and thanks again! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the bot is smarter than both of us, since it's archiving anyways.[5] Just need the archives box back -- I'll do that in a couple of hours. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The index link was already there, but I moved it up a bit. Since I missed it, I assume others would too. Cheers! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Excellent! Thanks for checking it out, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Connectify Article!

I just poted an article titled Connectify on wikipedia. I am new here. And I noticed a flag informing me that the article is due for deletion. Connectify is a windows 7 computer application that turns your computer into a wireless hotspot without any additional hardware. THe topic is not about a person (living or dead), or place or animal. The application is also popular so I am disheartened that it was tagged for immediate deletion. Please, my mentor, help me with any suggestions if you can. Or you may help me to edit the ARTICLE itself on wikipedia! Thanks. --Dfewgoodmen (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've restored the article for you in your userspace at User:Dfewgoodmen/Connectify. You are welcome to work on it there (without fear of it being deleted) to improve it's assertion of notability. Please contact the adminstrator who deleted the article, user JzG (talk · contribs), before moving it back to the mainspace. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Television Game Show Franchises

I was reading this article recently and discovered some outdated information. How do I contact the author of the article? I saw your name as having assessed the article. Thanks in advance. Denisarona (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! As with most Wikipedia articles, there are many many authors. However, you are welcome to update the information yourself (in fact this would be greatly appreciated!). Let me know if you have any questions, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll try!!Denisarona (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hermann Baumgarten

Updated DYK query On April 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hermann Baumgarten, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Materialscientist! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Undeletion of The Vera List Center for Art and Politics

Hello, I have made all suggested revisions to The Vera List Center for Art and Politics page and would like to request its undeletion. I previously had requested its undeletion on March 10, 2010 but have not received any notification/action. Thank you for your help and consideration! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carinkuoni/The_Vera_List_Center_for_Art_and_Politics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carinkuoni (talk • contribs) 15:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Carinkuoni! What it still seems to be lacking is reliable, secondary sources (references) to better verify the article's content. Do you know of any such sources that you can include? For example, has it been covered in a book, magazine, newspaper, or other publication? Looking forward to hearing from you, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
There is an online review of a Vera List Center publication (Forgiveness) from Modern Painters magazine and NYFA. I will add them to references. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carinkuoni (talk • contribs) 19:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello I added the suggested secondary sources. Please let me know if there are other suggestions to mark this page for undeletion. thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carinkuoni (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay! At this point, I will be willing to restore it, but might also open up a deletion discussion on it (which could turn up some better sourcing, or determine if such sourcing exists), if you like. Let me know your thoughts on this, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd very much appreciate if you could restore it and I feel that opening a deletion discussion could only help me to improve the page. Thank you again for your help and consideration. Will it be restored today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carinkuoni (talk • contribs) 16:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I've moved the article back to The Vera List Center for Art and Politics and opened up a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vera List Center for Art and Politics (your participation is welcome there, by the way). Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

fryrender page deletion

Hello, according to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Fryrender I've read, that such pages can be undeleted and moved to a User's Account to work on it. So I would like to, cause I invested some work in the Article already (creating Screenshot, making Tables, uploading Media and all that stuff). Besides that, there are a whole lot of Articles who are made in the same way (and to be honest, I used them as orientation for my own) like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_Render whose should be deleted then as well? Best Regards, -- Kausalitaet (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! I restored one of the prior versions to User:Kausalitaet/Fryrender, I hope it is suitable for you (let me know if it is not). As far as Maxwell_Render, it appears to be currently tagged for proposed deletion, and could be deleted if not contested. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Will try to improve the Article. :) -- Kausalitaet (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Good luck! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

HOODYWOOD RECORDS

Hi. I notice you userfied this at WP:REFUND; just a note to point out that it will need watching - the reason it's in all caps is that Hoodywood Records was deleted (by you, actually) after this AfD and then salted after repeated re-creation. I remain convinced it was a hoax - absolutely nothing checked out - though some at the AfD thought it was just utterly NN. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Truly a mess, I'm sorry. Other than watching it, is there anything else you think should be done about it? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Just watch. I thought of salting the all-caps title so he can't sneak it back unobserved, but NawlinWiki has already done that. He has been bombarding NawlinWiki and others with assertions that it's a real start-up company, with a website and a logo and on Myspace and Youtube and all... but considering that in March 2006 their article said "Hoodywood Records is Conglomeride Inc.’s flagship music brand, and has grown into a diverse entertainment company with a reputation for discovering premiere musical talent and developing innovative music", and four years later their web-site is still in "Coming soon" mode, they are not progressing very fast towards notability. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the full scoop John, I will indeed keep an eye on it - take good care! Arbitrarily0 (talk)

Improperly listed AfD

this doesn't appear to be showing in any of the day by day AfD listings. Enigmamsg 22:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like the nominator may have forgetten that step, but DumbBOT has fixed the problem. Take good care, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I saw the bot edit, but I don't see it on any of the day by day logs, which could be why it still hasn't been closed. It's been open for about eleven days and hasn't been closed or relisted. Enigmamsg 17:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, well since it wasn't in any of the logs I decided to relist it. It's now transcluded at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 April 9. Thanks for bringing this up, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Good day, friend!

Hey! I’m back! Only now, I have changed my name to Dr. Rhino, in case you’re wondering. So, be prepared to be hit with more questions from my inquisitive self. Cheers! Dr. Rhino★★★ 16:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Wayne! Glad to see you back! I'm already looking forward to more visits from you here! Take excellent care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot immunity

Just a heads up that Plot immunity was undeleted and relisted at AFD by Black Kite due to sock puppetry (AN/I discussion). --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah good, nice to see that's being cleared up. Thanks for letting me know, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

File:LlamaBot DM 2.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:LlamaBot DM 2.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Haruth (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Haruth, I've added it. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD result

You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash as merge. The info was merged back into the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash article, but there has been discontent over this, with the result that all the info has been deleted from the article. Please would you join the discussion at talk:2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash as the current situation is not in accordance with the AfD result - i.e. it was not delete. Mjroots (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mjroots, I have commented. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

An editor has asked for a deletion review of International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mjroots (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Okeyday, thanks for the update! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Insane

I dont understand how the result of the Afd for Insane (Eminem song) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insane (Eminem song) results in Redirect when the tally that came up was 2 votes to Redirect, 3 votes to Keep and 1 vote to merge. And btw i didn't notice anything was merged like this editor said. STAT- Verse 23:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It looked like your !vote and User:Eduardofoxx13's !vote were the only ones that did not mention a merge/deletion. As User:Vianello quoted, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", which rough consensus held to be the case. I suppose you are welcome to take it to deletion review if you so wish, just let me know. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, User:JohnFromPinckney's merge can be found here. You're welcome to expand on the merge, though. Take care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Vera List Center

Dear Arbitrarily0:

This note is from a novice Wikipedia-ite, and is a request to take off the "merge" suggestion on the Vera List page.

I can attest, as a NYC-resident and attendee of its programs, that the Vera List Center is distinct from the New School. For one thing, according to its literature and website, while it has offices there and uses the New School facilities, it is a separate entity and has financing apart from the School. Its programs are independently determined, and its administrator is not a faculty member. Giachen (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Giachen! Discussion on this is currently underway at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vera List Center for Art and Politics, where I see you have voiced your opinion. The article has not been merged as of yet, but could be if consensus is found to do at the discussion. Please let me know if you have any questions, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Review of 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

Would it be possible to downgrade the protection of the page back to semi-protection? As a current event and open investigation the facts of the accident are changing rapidly as official announcements are made. Despite the heated debate regarding the huge table of quotes, the number of reverts on the page is relatively small. Also, I commented on the AfD review. I am a new editor so if that was in error please accept my apologies and direct me to the relevant Wikipedia policy. Thanks. --N419BH (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! It looks like 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash was semi-protected soon after you asked here, so you should be all set now. As for your comment at the deletion review, it seems perfectly reasonable to me. :) Take good care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Aluwani Dzhivhuho

Can you double check what you did here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aluwani dzhivhuho. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

How exactly did I miss that? Wow :) Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
No, thank you for letting me know! I need a userbox that says "this administrator is silly". ;) Take care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I thought there was a possibility that the process was to delete the AFD named article(in lower case) and that I may have to send it to AFD again. So I am happy it's all cleared up. :) Regards, SunCreator (talk)
No, you're good - the problem was that I accidentally only deleted a redirect to the article (rather than the article at its new, moved, location). My fault, glad you noticed. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Eric Ely

Thanks, I guess, for the close. It has been since hacked to pieces, and turned into a resume masquerading as a puff piece. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I've seen it's been renominated already though at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ely (2nd nomination). I'll be interested to see how all this plays out. Thanks for dropping in, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

I do not understand why you deleted the subject article. Apparently it is because the society mentioned (which I have no connection with, by the way) is interested in cold fusion and so is not notable. But there is a Wikipedia article on Cold Fusion!

I really would be grateful if you could explain what's going on here.

Thanks quota (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Quota! Sorry for the delayed reply. The article was deleted because consensus was found to do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. Does this help clear things up a bit? Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the reply .. but no, that does not clear up things at all. The "consensus" you refer to seems to be five or six people who object to the research done by the society in question. I do not at all understand why a tiny number of people can delete an article (with no grounds for doing so). Where is the 'undo' option?
I can see grounds for adding a section 'the research is disputed', but erasing the article and its history is unjustified. In general, this kind of action is deemed 'vandalism'; it's not 'Wikipedia'. Do please clarify what's going on here. Thanks! quota (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
While there were editors who thought that the article should be kept, rough consensus was to delete the page. First off, try taking a look at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions; maybe challenging the discussion is an option. Hoping to hear back from you, best regards! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Leahey

Hi, i asked that this article be userfied for me to work on if it were to be deleted, could you move it to User:Marknutley/Douglas Leahey along with it`s discussion page please mark nutley (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done - at User:Marknutley/Douglas Leahey. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk)
Thanks man mark nutley (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Timeline of the War on Terror

I have nominated Timeline of the War on Terror, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the War on Terror. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Tim Song (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update Tim! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC Mojo (2nd nomination)

Hi Arbitrarily0, could you please delete articles Nicolai Helbo ("FC Mojo manager") and Anita Maskova ("FC Mojo owner") which were nominated alongside FC Mojo? I had originally prodded them (without the author contesting the prod), but thought they should be a part of the deletion discussion and changed their deletion warnings to link to the FC Mojo discussion. Thanks :) Poulsen (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for letting me know! I'm not sure why I always forget to go back to those, my mistake. Thanks again, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The Vera List Center for Art and Politics

Hello. I am curious as to why this page is marked as if it were written like an advertisement. The content is written in a general manner, not self-publicizing, and the reference section has listed several reputable magazine reviews, interviews, and coverage of Vera List Center events and staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnneLee143 (talk • contribs)

Greetings! If you feel that the issues marked at the top of the page have been addressed, you are welcome to remove the tags. Just leave a note on the article's talk page detailing your reasoning so that other editors may comment if they wish. Good luck and cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate the kind words, and the news on how it closed. Mandsford (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I am always more than happy to close discussions like that - great work! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Casey's American Top 40

Hello. I was very surprised and disappointed to learn, just now, that the AT40 affiliates lists have been removed, as I have been using those pages constantly for about two years. I understand that Wikipedia has a mission and policies, but the information is very useful, and someone has been working hard to keep it updated and verified. But that's it, then? It's just gone, and it's not coming back? At the very least, how could I get my hands on the content of the page as it was just before it was deleted so that I can keep my own personal copy of the information? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.157.209.66 (talk • contribs)

Hello Mr. Arbitrarily0, I have one question for you, why have you deleted the links to the Radio Stations that air America's Top 40 Countdown with Kasey Kasem? What was wrong with them? Are you going to post them again? Hope to hear from you soon. Best regards, --198.83.125.149 (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I assume you are both referring to List of stations that air Casey Kasem's American Top 40: The 80's and List of stations that air Casey Kasem's American Top 40: The 70's? Those two articles were deleted because consensus to do so was found at a discussion; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stations that air Casey Kasem's American Top 40: The 80's. Please let me know if you'd like more clarification on how that works, or if I can try to point you in the right direction. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD - "Big Data" points to first round discussion

Thanks for closing discussion on Talk:Big_data! I worked my butt off on that one. Wondering if:

jk (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Yeah I'm not sure what happened on the talk page, but I think I fixed it now. Thanks for letting me know, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

xat.com article

Hello... i strongly feel you should re-think the deletion of the xat.com article.. and allow it to be worked on.. me and others speant a while trying to get this page good...

Also check out http://xat.com to decide if xat is un-notable or not :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.143.136 (talk • contribs)

Greetings! The article was deleted because consensus was found to do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xat.com. Are there any sources not brought up during the discussion that would help assert Xat.com's notability? Let me know if you have any questions at all, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Eager and hard-working novice needs adopting...

Kind Sir, please consider this my official petition for adoption. I am currently formulating an article in my user space. I have spent several weeks educating myself as well as one can flying solo (IMHO). I am having trouble with many esoteric aspects of this project:

  • Encyclopedic presentation
  • Structural composition
  • Context management (Subject is difficult)
  • Other minor issues...

Feel free to take a look at what has developed so far: Distributed operating system. If you are amenable, please contact at your convenience. JLSjr (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Sure, I'd be happy to adopt you. That's quite a draft you've got there! One point of advice, for starters, is that a userspace draft doesn't have to be perfect before it is moved to the articlespace. I presume you are looking to have it included in the articlespace eventually, right? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, yes I do. Having glanced at the article, I would like to know your objective first impression; and more importantly, what you would suggest specifically to address encyclopedic presentation and the basic structure. I am under the impression there is still too much of my voicing in the text; and the structure is somewhat coming together, but still needs a couple beatings with the coherent stick.
Thank you, thank you very much for your willingness to work with me. Do you have regular times when you are available? What is your preferred method of communication? Maybe you could just tell me all the initiatory information; and I will hold off innundating you with questions...
JLSjr (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi again, sorry for the delayed reply. No problem at all, I'll do my best to steer you in the right direction. As far as communication, my talk page (here), is fine - but my schedule is too unreliable to give you any times of which I'll be online. My first concern would be to make sure that this topic isn't already covered in Wikipedia. For example, how similar (or the same) is Single system image to distributed operating system? Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok. We'll play it loose on the time thing; but if their are any "standing paradigms" of mentoring I should be aware of, please advise. With respect to related work, this is the potential debate space. There are currently articles related to: Parallel computing, Distributed Computing, Concurrent computing, Grid computing, Cloud computing, ad nauseum... However, none of those articles could possibly be effective as articles because of there scope. They are really categories of computing. Approached as an article, Parallel is better; but even it opens with a broad scope and quickly becomes fractured in the myriad of available idiosyncratic possibilities. I'm not being judgmental, just commenting on the immense difficulty of that subject, as an article.
More to your question. The Single system image is an attribute of a Distributed system. Notice Distributed operating system in bold black, with no link. There is a massive amount of confusion among these articles, which I have no intention of approaching; at least at this point (more on this later). Single system image is an attribute of a Distributed system that is necessary in definition only. If the user of a banking website's "Bill pay" functionality actually knew the bill was paid from a business other than the bank, would the system fail to work? No.
It is necessary for the definition of the system, in that whoever is designing the system should keep this attribute in mind for many reasons. The major reason being, there are many algorithms required to produce a system of this type, and each of these algorithms must perform under a wide range of possible assumptions. A node in the system must assume it has no idea what the real workload of another system is (at a specific point in time). Messages take time to circulate information around the system. If a node that has recently been providing assistance is now overloaded and unable to produce a timely response, another must be found. A node must assume that it may find that another node has failed, and must be prepared to find an alternative. Regardless of the circumstance (or algorithm), the designer of the system must put in place any and all measures necessary for the user to be unaware of these actions, the circumstances leading to them, and the decision process in recovery; only in the sense that the system must not place any expectation of participation on the user. The system must be completely self-contained (and fault-tolerant). Therefore, the user sees the system as a single system, not a distributed network of nodes. It is not the knowledge, but the definition that is important.
Meanwhile, back at the farm... One of the major factors of continuity missing here is the Distributed operating system. This Distributed operating system provides much of the functionality that is fractiously described throughout the computing segment of Wikipedia. Even in the above description, there are 57 points of contention available; depending on if viewed from the Grid computing aspect, or the Network computing aspect, on and on... There is no article on the Distributed system, my next challenge.
Man, what a Firestorm that subject will cause. I can hear it now, “there is already an article on Distributed computing.” Will it do any good to state that both the "Distributed operating system"-based Distributed system, and the "Network operating system"-based Distributed system are both Distributed systems? If the earlier argument hold true, why would there be a Grid computing article, as any system covered by grid computing is a Distributed system, or any system discussed in the Cloud computing arena is a Distributed system.
My point is, there ultimately has to be some overarching and undergirding structure to the presentation of this complicated and technical information, or else it just an exercise in ”Wikimania.” I have not come on the scene to “save the Wiki world,” per se. I am very passionate about this subject matter, and more importantly in the accessibility (and digestibility) of it to the public.
Wow! Sorry for the pontification; but, did I mention I was passionate?
JLSjr (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow! Well I have no doubt you are passionate. :) Unfortunately, I'm not someone who's very familiar with the subject, but you will likely be able to find people who are at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing (you might consider posting a thread there). My suggestion at this point would be to move your draft to distributed operating system (I can do this for you if you like), even though it's not done (but neither is Wikipedia). :) Let me know what you think, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I have involved tech-oriented content review from other sources. However, I was in hopes you could provide the Wiki-oriented advice that will be a critical facet in the articles acceptance by the larger community; and possibly achieve Good Article status. Let me know if this is something you could assist with. Thanks... JLSjr (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
As far as good article goes, the first step would be moving your draft into the mainspace and then making a nomination. Being unfamiliar with the subject, I honestly can't say how close the article currently is to 'GA'. Sorry to seem so unhelpful, but still - I would highly encourage moving the draft to the mainspace - it seems ready to me at least. :) Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


Nomination for deletion of Template:Pages-1

Template:Pages-1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice - would have nominated them myself had I remembered they were there! :) Take care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Shia mosques in NCR

I really think you should have relisted this one; I don't think it got much in the way of getting looked at. By contrast Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthodox parishes in Washington D.C., which is pretty much the same situation, ended in delete, I think mostly because lots of people looked at it. Mangoe (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done - although relists are often supposed to be used for discussions with fewer participants, I must confess that the keep arguments made no mention of actual Wikipedia policy after looking closer. Thanks and sorry. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration. Mangoe (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
You're most welcome, thanks for bringing this up. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Stations that air "American Top 40 - The 80s"

Please re-instate the page "List of Stations that air "American Top 40 - The 80s." I used it every single week and found it extremely accurate and helpful. Since the show isn't available in my area, I used that page to find streaming on stations throughout the continent. Now finding the show will be much more difficult. Sincerely, Lec Zorn Indianapolis, Indiana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leczorn (talk • contribs)

This page has been deleted via a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stations that air Casey Kasem's American Top 40: The 80's. If you believe that the consensus of the discussion was found in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, you may open up a request at deletion review. However, I have userfied a copy of the article for you to use at User:Leczorn/List of stations that air Casey Kasem's American Top 40: The 80's. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Adoption Request

May you kindly 'adopt' me under the adopt-a-user programme. I noticed you were listed, and so requested. Thanks, Gengleong (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be most happy to! Let me know if there's anything I can ever help you with! Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Radio

Hello, I am looking for the List of Radio "Stations that carry American Top 40 the 70's". It was deleted by you from the American Top 40 page. I have located the 80's stations list but I am unable to find the 70's page. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinderviddles (talk • contribs) 22:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! The list you are looking for has been userfied to User:Leczorn/List of stations that air Casey Kasem's American Top 40: The 70's. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

ACC rqst not marked...

Perhaps you missed this. Just leaving a note for you... ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 19:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, yep I forgot to check it off. Thanks for the update, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
No probs :) One more :) Cheers man. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 16:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Not much to say other than: X| LOL, thanks for the update; I'll try to work on my memory. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Star Wars: Battlefront III

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Star Wars: Battlefront III. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars: Battlefront III. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thankee! I have commented, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Konqistador

That is article is still around and the result of the discussion was delete. Was it an oversight or has something else come up that is delaying its deletion? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! The article was deleted as a result of the discussion, but was recreated soon after. I have re-deleted it now per CSD G4 (and feel free to use {{db-g4}} in the future). Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The article has been recreated and the {{db-repost}} tag that I placed on it has remained there for nearly two days. Would you delete the article again and salt it? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry I didn't see your note. I've re-deleted the page and commented with you at User talk:Ultraexactzz#Konqistador. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
It's all right. Thank you for deleting the article. Cunard (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome, take care! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of the War on Terror

Oh well, I suppose you are the best person to ask on what you used for recreation...Some of the phrasing in the old and new versions are entirely identical, which was why I merged the histories. Tim Song (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tim! First of all, so sorry for the delayed reply! I un-merged the histories to honor a discussion User:Jayjg and I had, when Jay decided it would be best to not userfy the old version (for draft work) in order to avoid replicating the original's synthesis. Ah, but I see what your saying - I suppose part of the problem was my being too familiar with the original article, but the other part is probably due to the fact that some of the items can only be phrased one way (for example "Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa begins" is an item where it's hard to use any other diction). Whatever you see best here Tim, my thinking was only to keep the original research version in the deleted history just because that's what the original AfD decided, but I guess it's a small matter. Hope you are well, best regards! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of Vaporware

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Vaporware. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Spartan riven with errors

Your article about Spartan was very poorly researched. Are you doing this all on line, or do you actually have some sources?Dutchman Schultz (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dutchman! Feel free to help out with the article, it could certainly use some expansion. Are there any particular problems you see with the sources? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Adoption

Hello I am interested in your help. Please respond on my talk page. (I'll probably see it if you respond here) Mr. R00T (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to adopt you! Let me know of anything I can help you with - don't hesitate to ask. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Mr. R00T (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC).
Hey Arbitrarily0, would you mind helping me out with the Wikisyntax. It's really confusing and different from what I normally use (XHTML). Mr. R00T (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi again! Well, I fixed the formatting of this thread, is that what you're referring to? :) Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you show me a place where that can teach me wikisyntax better than Wikisyntax? And, is there a way to edit straight into HTML (sorry I just don't feel like learning Wikisyntax and would like an alternative). Mr. R00T (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC).
To answer your second question, not that I know of - your best bet might be to try searching convert html to wiki markup. Back to the first, I think Help:Wiki markup might be helpful in learning wikitext, just be patient with it - you'll learn it faster than you think :) Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll take a look at it. How do you do the fancy signatures?Mr. R00T (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
You can adjust your signature almost any way you like - just go to your preferences, and under the 'user profile' tab, check the box next to "sign my name using the provided wikitext". Now in the text area above it, just type in the code that makes up your signature. Your current signature is made up of [[User:1234r00t|Mr. R00T]] ([[User talk:1234r00t|talk]]). I hope this helps, let me know how it goes! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I meant the colours. Though I can probably figure it out from yours. Mr. R00T (talk)
Oh, sorry. You can creat colors by using the following code: <span style='color:#FF4500'> test </span>. A good place to find the hex triplet (e.g., "#FF4500") of various colors is at the list of colors. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
That's fine. I already have a website that gives me the hex triplet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1234r00t (talk • contribs) 21:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good! :) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Arbitrarily0 (Mr. R00t) Contact me 21:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
How does this signature look? Thanks for all of your help Mr. R00t Contact me 03:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, looks great! :) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you have to be a sysop (admin) to ban obnoxious users/ IPs? Let me know Mr. R00t Leave me a Message
Yep, users without the administrator flag can't block users. :) Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Would I be likely to succeed in a campaign for adminship? I hate going through other people to get what I need. Later Mr. R00t Leave me a Message 23:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Oops! Sorry for the delayed reply! The biggest thing about a successful request for adminship is about having the community's trust - if the community trusts you, then you will likely succeed. Although anyone can request adminship, I would take a look at Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship to see you how you 'match up' to other candidates. At this point, I would suspect that the community would like to see a bit more experience from you before granting the rights - but keep up the great work! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As you can see if you looked at my contribs I have already tried and failed. I will try again in 6-12 months. Later Mr. R00t Leave me a Message 03:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good! :) Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Arbitrarily0, I have a bit of a problem here currently that I do not really know how to resolve. I decided to help out on CPIM as a moderator. As you can see here I am meeting with some problems. I offered Deshabhakta to bring you in as a third party. Let me know if you're willing to help. Mr. R00t Leave me a Message 23:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hiya! Well, I must admit I'm not overly familiar with the Mediation Cabal process, but I would be happy to help sort it out if the other parties are okay with that. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy reply. At this point in the process it is no longer necessary for me to get permission from all party members. I have become slightly biased in favor of Deshabhakta because I think he is in the right. I would like to be able to step back for a moment and have someone tell me what they think of the situation. I know I should try to be unbiased but getting another third party (other than myself) seems like a good idea right now. It doesn't violate any rules since there aren't very many. If you are unwilling could you please give me a list of any users who might be willing to help? Bye Mr. R00t Leave me a Message 00:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I'll look into the case as soon as I get a chance - likely by tomorrow. I'm glad to hear that you're able to recognize your own bias and want to take a step back. We'll keep in touch, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
First off. Could you please add {{ editnotice }} to the top of CPIM? Secondly I am trying to install Huggle (yes I have rollback) but can't on my Mac OS X. I have tried to install Wine already. Thanks Mr. R00t Leave me a Message 03:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
For the editnotice, will it be necessary since the page is currently fully protected from editing? Perhaps you could discuss this on the article's talk page, however. Unfortunately I'm not too familiar with Huggle, but I would try asking Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback where there should be some experts that can point you in the right direction. Hope you are well, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I was talking about the editnotice for when the protection comes off. I am expecting a huge amount of immediate reverts as of May 31 23:34 (when the block comes up). I just want everything to be clear to Nathinj, Soman, and Viplovecomm. As for Huggle I have read through the Feedback section and it was not much help. (Install Wine, Do X command sequence then open file Y blah blah blah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1234r00t (talk • contribs) 18:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I would recommend we wait and see what happens to the article once the protection comes off - we don't want to risk scaring away any good-faith editors if we don't have to. With Huggle, I'm not sure what the problem would be (partly because I'm not too familiar with Mac OS X), but I would try clicking here to ask your question. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I decided to look through the Feedback section and found something called Igloo. It runs natively on Mac OS X and works just as well (better maybe) than Huggle. As for the article I see what you mean. But, I would like you to put that tag on as soon as there is any vandalism. Sorry, just like being cautious. Mr. R00t Leave me a Message 22:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Good good! And sorry I never thought of recommending Igloo. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Is there somewhere on Wikipedia where people request things to be done? Mr. R00t Leave me a Message 01:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Did you have anything in particular in mind? I suppose you could try starting at Wikipedia:Requests. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing particular. Just board. Feel I should do something useful with my time other than arguing :). (CPIM). Mr. R00t Leave me a Message 19:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure! Maybe check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, for example/starters. They can always use participants there. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks I was just about to take a look at that when I noticed you had said something here. Mr. R00t Leave me a Message 04:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Best way to make enemies on wikipedia= rollback vandalism :) Mr. R00t Leave me a Message 00:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Challenged PROD

Thanks for granting my request. I noticed that you use the same text often, so to save you time, and as a token of my appreciation, I created a template for you at User:Arbitrarily0/Challenged PROD. However whatever (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You're degree of thoughtfulness is incredible! It pains me to even tell you that such a template is at Template:Unprod - but it's the thoughtfulness that counts! Thanks for making my wiki-day. ;) Best regards! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
That's OK. I have updated Template:Unprod to include the indentation and the 4 tildas. However whatever (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The good thing about leaving the message un-autosigned is that it allows one to add an extra information at the end. The good thing about your version is that it's easier to use when that's all there is to say. In order to make both types available, I'll keep both versions so that they can be used interchangeably. Thanks again, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess that way you can have your cake and eat it too !!!! If you want to keep both version, perhaps you can move User:Arbitrarily0/Challenged PROD into Template:Unprod2 or something similar, since the idea is to save typing, and to type {{User:Arbitrarily0/Challenged PROD}} is quite a few characters. However whatever (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Good idea! It is now at Template:Unprod2. Thanks a lot, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Somebody's Got Mail

... and if you check yours it might be you!  :) Svanslyck (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I'll get back to you soon! :) Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Rollback permissions

Hi there, thanks for granting my request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#User:Pumpmeup. You mentioned that I have lost rollback privileges in the past. I vaguely remember this happening, but you could please link me to a page where this is documented or remind me what happened so I don't do it again? I've genuinely forgotten. Cheers, --Pumpmeup 01:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Here's a link to your permissions log. Your rollback right was removed by User:AzaToth on March 1, 2008 - but judging by your recent edits, you seem ready for the permission again. Good luck with Huggle! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Konqistador

No, no - I totally agree, and I'm not sure how I missed that it was a repost. Thanks for correcting my error. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem at all, it happens :) Take great care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Request assistance, why was article deleted? wiki guidelines were adhered to and template for musician page was established, old content was not re-posted, recent posting resembled nothing like previous entry, article is reliable as per references provided, please advise :) - many thanksWiki4132 (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The page in question was deleted via a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konqistador. If you believe that the consensus of the discussion was found in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please don't hesitate to let me know. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Footnote format for books

I need to cite some books in <ref>footnotes</ref>. Can you tell me the proper format for the citation, e.g. Chicago Manual of Style, Turabian, etc. Or does W have its own format. I know there are templates but I wanted to have an understanding of the proper form of the displayed output. Thanks. Svanslyck (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hiya! Well as you said, the easy way to generate a good book citation is through {{cite book}}. Wikipedia doesn't have any mandatory layout, but it is recommended that all of the citations on a page have a consistent format (see here). In other words, the order of a citation's content doesn't matter, as long as all of the citations on a page have the same order. Does this make sense? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Yepper! Svanslyck (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Glad I could help - let me know if anything else pops up. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Pic in CU/OS statement

I removed the picture from your candidate statement in order to keep everything uniform. Sorry. KnightLago (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all, my mistake. Thanks for taking care of it, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

{{/}}?

The {{/}} on your pages is pretty darn cool. But how does it work? Svanslyck (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha, thanks! It works by transcluded one of my user subpages, User:Arbitrarily0/ and User talk:Arbitrarily0/, to my main user and user talk pages. In other words, {{User:Arbitrarily0/}} means the same as {{/}} when it's on your user page. Give it a try! Let me know if that sounded way too confusing :) Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Well no wonder I'm confused. I thought it might be pulling from a subpage, but I'm a Windows guy so I would have assumed that Arbitrarily0 and Arbitrarily0/ referred to the same directory. kcylsnavS (kalt) 12:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
:D Glad I could help! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please undelete my article: Author DC Barah

referring to an article of help i found on wikipedia... "my article was a prod and was deleted what can I do about it" I found out that if I ask you to undo the deletion, you might!( I'm pasting in the peice I found...)"If an article was deleted as a result of a proposed deletion ("prod"), any administrator should normally restore it on your request. In such cases, you can leave a message on this noticeboard." This is my request for you to undelete it, thanks. Rotsap (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rotsap! Unfortunately, the article was not deleted via proposed deletion, but instead through a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DC Barah, Author. Does this make sense? Let me know if there's anything I can help clear up for you, best regards! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

DJ and Musician Kickn Kenny V

I would like to see this Chicago House Music DJ, Dancer and Musician reinstated on this forum. I have found many articles, flyers, and friends that can collaborate his information. How can we get his information reinstated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.55.57 (talk) 04:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done - this page has been deleted via a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kickin' Kenny V. If you believe that the consensus of the discussion was found in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user JForget (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

IP Lockout

I would like to suggest that the naughty IP who made the change I undid here be locked out. kcylsnavS {screech} 22:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi again! Normally, users and (anonymous/IP users) are given around four warnings before they are blocked. At this point, you may make a request at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. In this particular case, however, it looks like the user could be interested in contributing constructively. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems very strange. The IP is assigned to a small college on Manhattan. After I posted a warning on the IP's talk page, the IP actually got back to me with a polite statement promising not to do it again! Now being a written statement I could presume, but not rightfully assume, sarcasm, but the fact that the IP actually read its own talk page - AND responded to the message (combined with the text of the vandalizing edit itself - says to me that human behind the IP new exactly what he or she was doing and did so intentionally. Well, if nothing else I've now both saved Wikipedia (hehe) and learned the right way to make these recommendations. kcylsnavS {screech} 12:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Curious! Well I'm glad you're learning something! :) In the future, just try to remember to start out with {{uw-vandalism1}}, rather than {{uw-vandalism3}} - that way they'll be introduced to the more welcoming messages first. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Winross Deletion

You deleted my article on Winross and I understand why. Is there any way the article could be restored as a draft somehow so I can continue to work on it as I collect more references to establish more solid notability? Thanks, --Cstevencampbell (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done - sounds fine to me! I've restored the page to User:Cstevencampbell/Winross. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed

Thank you for granting my request for Confirmed User status! Take care. MaraRobinson (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for the thank you! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Endless Sacrifice (band)

Do you think you can undelete my page? I posted it under the undeletion thing, because it was wrongfully deleted. I spent an hour trying to make a page for my cousin's band, since they are getting popular and their first cd came out, and i decided to save my work so I wouldn't lose it. Then I go to upload a picture, and some person deleted my page, and they said it wasn't specific! Well, of course it wasn't specific, it wasn't even finished! This isn't fair. I wasted my whole morning for nothing. I checked, and h the person had wrongfully speed deleted it. The band already has an album, have been around for more than a year, and pass many things under(I think it is) A7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shark king 727 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hiya! I'm sorry this has been such a rattling experience for you. As another editor said at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Endless Sacrifice (band), this is something you might discuss with User:NawlinWiki. If you'd like, I can userfy the article to User:Shark king 727/Endless Sacrifice (band) for you to work on. Let me know, regards! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please restore article about "PowerFolder"

Dear Arbitrarily, I'm the project manager of PowerFolder open source file synchronization software. Thank you for your work on wikipedia, but could you please restore our article on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerFolder We have a major presence (1 mio+ download and about 250k users), but very limited marketing instruments so our visibility in the net does not reflect our actual size. Our customers / We support:

We also offered wikipedia free license of our commercial product. On SourceForge.net our rank varies between 500-2000. Thank you for your understanding. Best regards, Christian Sprajc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.0.182 (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! The article was deleted because of consensus to do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PowerFolder (2nd nomination). If you think the consensus of the discussion was determined in error, or new information has come to light since the discussion, you might consider making a deletion review. Let me know your thoughts, regards! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Would be great! I could personally provide some more information and sources for wikipedia if you need those as prove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.0.182 (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, those sources would be great in helping determine notability if they're available to you. Let me know, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


Deletion review for PowerFolder

An editor has asked for a deletion review of PowerFolder. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 62.143.92.100 (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Ok I have added a discussion and additional information about our project/product: Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review/Log/2010_June_28

New: Need Guidance. Mostly I deal in film and art.

I will usually be creating pages for artists or films or artists working in film who have produced independently verifiable (if smaller scale) works. I could use any help available. My background is in film and writing. Thanks so much, "msfdigi" —Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC).

I would be happy to do whatever I can for you, just let me know! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Spider-Man (3rd nomination)

I am considering nominating this closure for deletion review, and respectfully request that you reconsider. The same issues have been raised at this as at the two previous AFDs, namely that the article is original research par excellence, and therefore should be cleaned up. The fact that nobody has done the required cleanup over nearly two years strongly points to the conclusion that the article is not maintainable as an encyclopedia article, and should therefore be deleted. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hiya Stifle! Thanks for your respects, I understand what you are concerned about. Although I've found your argument quite convincing (both here and in the discussion), a number of other editors were meanwhile convincing in their argument that the subject was sourceable and fixable. I figured that closing it any other way would be too ignoring of the lack of consensus, even when weighting arguments. I know you feel strongly about this though, and I greatly respect your experienced judgment on these sort of things - let me know what you're thinking. Sincerely, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I was very close to closing the debate as delete myself for the above reasons, but realised I was too involved. The history of the article makes it seem very like users just "like" it and don't care whether it's original research, and whether that problem can be fixed. Promises to fix it or assertions that it can be fixed, if someone would just go and do it have worn very thin, and you'll note that the only edits in the last week have been adding or removing tags.
We go by policy here, and the only arguments from established users to keep the article as-is that have even a tenuous link to policy (and I'm being generous) are those of Spidey104, Torchiest, and Silverseren. Tenebrae, Mr. Random, and BOZ recommend keeping with editing or trimming, but the very fact that it is a third nomination after nearly two years creates at least a presumption that the attempts to improve the article have had enough time and have failed. The article has exactly zero sources that aren't comic books or books/websites about comic books, and 82 of the 84 sources are primary.
The policy-based argument that the article violates WP:NOR was not refuted in the AFD other than bare assertions that reliable sources exist (despite that nobody was bothered enough to add them in the last week, or the last two years), and as such, the correct closure to the debate was, in my opinion, delete. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I suppose what I was trying to do as closer was assume good faith from the noted keep !voters (which said that although the article hasn't been improved in a while doesn't mean improvement is necessarily impossible). Although the article is largely original research as it is now, a number of editors in the discussion believed that the article's content can be trimmed, sourced, or merged. Your thoughts? Sincerely, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
It's simply that neither I, nor several of the others, believed that any cleanup is likely to happen since they've had more than enough time to do so. Stifle (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Right - and of course it's not that I don't agree with you, it's that some editors argued that it had a potential for improvement. As I noted in the closure, even though Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, it will be harder and harder for it to survive AfD in the future without significant improvements. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated this discussion for deletion review. I hope you are not offended, but I feel strongly that you may have erred in your closure of the discussion and would like further input from the community. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
No offense take, Stifle. Thank you for discussing this so civilly. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Tables

Any idea what's wrong with my table at Template:User_Wikiage? It's a very simple table. I don't understand why the column separators are showing between the second and third columns. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 17:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Here you go, I've fixed it. :) Part of the problem was establishing it as class="wikitable". Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
As you saw, I changed the whole layout, but point was I should not have had it set as a wikitable? When 'should I do that? kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 17:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Good question. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (tables), "A standard "wikitable style" is also available, by adding class="wikitable" to the top row of the table". Does this help at all? Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm just not sure how the class would (or should) impact the appearance of the || bars. It's not important. This is something I would be better served by figuring out for myself. I'm the only guy at work who knows where the F1 key is, and no reason why I can't use it at home too!  :) kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 03:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:) Alright, take care. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Undoing

Hey, Arbit. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Freemasons&action=history you'll see that I undit two edits in a row. Is there an easier way to undo them other than one by one? kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 18:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hiya! If you can quickly describe to me when and when not to use the rollback feature, I'll be happy to grant it to you. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Rollback is for use on vandalism - unquestionable vandalism, which in the example above was not the case. Some edits may or may not be made in good faith, and may or may not be vandalism, such as the edit I recently undid at Line crossing ceremony where the IP editor changed "physical abuse" to "sexual abuse." That's a pretty strong accusation, but it could be true.... if supported. Nevertheless the more extreme the edit the more it requires support by citation to a reliable source, but lack of support does not equal vandalism. Personally I am convinced that this change was intentional vandalism. But that's just my personal "feeling" about it and I could easily find someone who "felt" just the opposite. Rollback would not be appropriate for that kind of edit, because lack of good faith is not clear and obvious. Kinda wordy, but that's my understanding. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 03:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Okeyday! I have granted you rollback - more specifics about it on your talk page. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Cool. I will do my best to use my powers only for good. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 18:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good! Take care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Template:User Wiki age2

Template:User Wiki age2, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Wiki age2 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:User Wiki age2 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

Curious! Has the userbox now become redundant? Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
On a page I made, I grouped three userboxes, and found that User_Wikiage is very popular but this one had no transclusions at all. I created User_Wikiage3 because I wanted my box to say "This user" instead of "This Wikipedian" like my other boxes do, and was surprised that no one was linking to this one. It was also an exercise in learning how to make various proposals for deletion and I apologize for the mess I made on your watchlist as a result. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 03:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure! Isn't it true though that Template:User Wiki age2 has a slightly different wording than the others? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Small Question

Hi, I grapped your name from the list of adopter's. I have just a single small question about policies and stuff here, I'm not very fond of the English.wiki rules. So here is my question: The redirect Tom Burns (academic) links to Tom Burns (sociologist), but there is another "academic" Tom R. Burns - also "a European/American sociologist"

What would be best to do with this case? There are not many llinks to "Tom Burns (academic)" anyway, can they be re-linked and the redirect be deleted??

I hope you have soem time for this. Thank you, --WissensDürster (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hiya! I've added a hatnote to the top of the page (see here). This seems to solve the problem, do you think so? Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Good idea, I think that's a solution. Thanks --WissensDürster (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Great! Glad I could help, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Mall

Could you userify to Talk:Fort Saskatchewan/Fort_Mall for merger purposes?--Milowent (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for letting me know, good luck! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Huggle

Been working with Huggle today. Um, how does it know what sort of warning to apply to the user's talk page? How can I use it to enter a custom edit summary - I see the list in the options, but can't see how to pick one when editing or whatever. Thx kcylsnavS{screechharrass} P.S. I've learned two things: A - You gotta move fast - Hugglers seem to be in a race to see who can make repairs first. And 2, Any page with "School" in the title is a good place to find vandalism! kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 00:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Normally the default warning will do, but you can check out the other waring templates at Template:Huggle. For example, if a user blanked a page, you might choose that option (which places {{Huggle/warn-blank-1}} on the user's talk page). Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

For leaving an ACC request open for about 10 hours before I force broke the reservation and created it....

Large image of a trouting.
Not to be confused with Cod throwing.


Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.

Example


Whack!
The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.
To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.

That is all. FunPika 00:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! Sorry about that, thanks for taking care of it. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Faust Vrancic → Fausto Veranzio

Hello, sir. Some further explanations are needed about the above mentioned RM closing, because your decision about the move seems, honestly and without prejudices, not to be correct. Community considered consensus was clearly showed on it (even just counting votes). The article is completely written by sourced supporting the move. An unhappy editor, the same who performed the first undiscussed move, start a huge mess, votestacking, using SPA accounts and above all unleashing his polemics against GTBacchus the precedent closing admin. Please review your decision after take a look at: Administratotr's noticeboard: Fausto Veranzio move. And also, please take a look to the reasons added by Vegaswikian in relisting the req move. Thanks in advance for doing an important effort in reviewing it. --Theirrulez (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hiya! Thanks for coming to me about this. Just for starters, let me say that I'm completely open about discussing/adjusting my decision. There was a huge amount of discussion there, so forgive me if I have gotten lost in reading through those comments. One concern I had was that I couldn't find any comments after Vegaswikian's relist (which further led me to believe their still was no consensus). Also note that another move request right away might do better now that things may have changed a bit. I don't know, you're much more familiar with the situation than I - what are you thinking? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your approach firstly. I agree with you about the amount of comment which made the readability a bit complex. What I can say about it, to try to explain better the issue, was that it would be very appropriate to consider the consensus in a broader sense than a mere counting of votes (which incidentally, I believe, is in favor of the move by two votes, even counting all Croatian single-purpose IP who voted en masse and one last comment by doncram supporting the move -and without considering Vegaswikian relisting comment or GTBacchus summary-).
Let me explain: several Admins (those used to RM, like GTBacchus Ucucha, Ncmvocalist, SarekOfVulcan, Vegaswikian) had the acuity to notice how many of the opposing comments were driven by anachronistic and unjustified nationalist sentiments. These comments, as partisans "a priori", almost always during the discussion didn't add enough motivation to help build consensus. In the pursuit of consensus, however, we have to consider how the same opposing comments contradicted themselves citing first WPCOMMONAME and then pretentious and unfounded historical roots of the name. For this reason Vegaswikian relisted the request, and that's why GTBacchus avoided a partisan counting of votes, preferring a different method (as explained in Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Talk:Faust_Vran.C4.8Di.C4.87), and prepared a list of sources which should have been the instrument to clearify the closing decision. It evidently justifies the move and shows the current name is just secondary in English literature. Now wasn't expected to deliver more votes in order to evaluate the effective use of the name Veranzio or the name Vrancic in English language, literature and sources, but it was just expected to justify the move showing a clear evidence by collecting reliables sources, which can help everybody not to make sad users who had a nationalistic apporoach and giving them reasonable argument to understand the necessary move without further polemics.
Sorry for the complexity of the issue, I hope I was helpful to let you understand a bit more some deeper aspect of this unhappy move request. Theirrulez (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've looked over the discussion again, and, if you wish, I would be willing to withdraw my close. I can't deny that the entire issue is much more complicated than I initially thought. My personal recommendation would be to open up a second move discussion, now that it seems some of the conflict has died down, in order to try to get a much clearer consensus (but you would know better than I if that is a good next step). Let me know you're thoughts on all this. Yours, humbly, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Your personal, but wise, recomandation would be appliable if the issue wasn't so stuck by partizan votes. If I, or someone else, would re-open it, a even bigger load of not-neutral opposite comments will for sure automatically charged on the discussion, despite whatever good reason added. It would even more difficult to get some outside or neutral comments, because there is a deep interest on one side, not so much on other. It could be appropriate, IMHO, to ask an opinion to GTBacchus, the "moderating admin", or even to other RM admin. What do you think about? --Theirrulez (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh come on, this is just lobbying and CANVASSING [6]. Somebody really needs to put his foot down already and put a STOP to this ridiculous two-month "RM", I don't know if can even be called an RM anymore. The matter is certainly complex, which is why it has been discussed every which way and sideways for weeks on end - but there's simply no agreement to follow through with Theirrulez's highly controversial proposal.
Theirrulez, your RM is not supported by the community at this time - and for very good reason. Please try to get over it already...
Arbitrarily0, Theirrulez is naturally bitter his proposal was unsuccessful, the same way every single user with an unsuccessful RM feels. I've had my share of RMs, and if my proposal was at that time rejected by the community, I certainly would not expect a few of my posts on the talkpage could invalidate a very thorough five-week discussion on the issue. Theirrulez's definitions of a "neutral" user are his own, and I think he's the last person to deserve such a characterization. Please do not fall pray to this sort of panicky last-minute "lobbying". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry, DIREKTOR, I'll not fall prey to lobbying :) My opinion still remains that opening another discussion would be the best course of action if so desired (for if there was a strong consensus in the first request, then the second would likely have one too (and could benefit in accuracy by the preexisting 'list of sources' and the possibility of less SPA participants)). That said, I would be interested to hear the opinion of GTBacchus, to see if my close was within discretion, considering my still relative unfamiliarity with the whole situation. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Well Arbitrarily0, now you got a taste of what I meant.. =D --Theirrulez (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
LoL :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks Theirrulez, for letting me know about this conversation. Arbitrarily0, hi. :)

The discussion about the move request over there is long and complicated, and it's actually a lot longer than it seems, because it spills over into other talk page sections, and even to an entirely different subpage, for the list of sources.

When I arrived at the RM, I saw a lot of off-topic discussion, which is all irrelevant. I noticed the following: (A) The titling decision should be source-based, since this is a source based encyclopedia. (B) There weren't a lot of sources in the article at all. (C) People were attempting to use various Google searches to determine the subject's "COMMONNAME", however the subject is obscure enough that the resulting numbers of g-hits constitute evidence that is inconclusive at best.

Taking these three factors into account, I decided to ask that people find actual sources, put them in a list, and add them to the article, so that we could get a more complete picture of how F.V. is talked about in the literature. Some editors then worked to create a list of sources, organize them, and start adding sourced material to the article.

After a few days of this, although participation was not universal, we had enough evidence to form a picture of how F.V. is talked about in published, reliable, English-language sources. In particular, lexicographers (mostly) use his Croatian name, and engineers (mostly) use his Italian name. Veranzio the engineer seems to be the subject of more English scholarship than Vrančić the lexicographer. Having made that observation, I would lean towards the Italian spelling.

I think the idea of a fresh RM is not a bad one, but it should be done properly. I would be willing to open and moderate the request. The important thing would be to keep it focused on encyclopedic considerations, which would mean that Theirrulez characterization of DIREKTOR's behavior and DIREKTOR's characterization of Theirrulez behavior would be completely irrelevant and off-topic. These guys like talking about each other waaay too much, and guys: you're both doing it.

What's important is that the decision, whatever it is, be made by considering the available sources, and following them as well as we can. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi GTB, thanks for answering and explaining the issue. I'm not fond of disputing or arguing too long, you know, I'm quite exclusively an editor, so there couldn't be any problem for me to accept, as I did until now, your special proposal to moderate a discussion or a sort of source research-and-selection, from which we should get the right title of the page. I didn't want to characterize in any way Direktor's behaviour: he has for sure a better rhetorical oratory than me, I was just afraid about the wrong nationalistic meaning given to the RM by some partizan users (not only Direktor). GTB, do you agree to moderate a fresh RM? Will we have the same participation? How can you avoid an even bigger load of not-neutral partizan comments which could (probably) charged on the discussion, despite whatever evidence? How can we low SPA participants? I don't know. But I trust your approach GTB. And I want even to thank Arbitrarily0 for his coming to discuss despite his closing. Regards, Theirrulez (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome, Theirrulez - thanks for your thanks! :) GTBacchus, I fully agree with your comment. You are certainly welcome to open and moderate a new request, if you so wish. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree too. I just suggest (and last decision IMHO should be by GTBacchus) another way. GTB explained how there's a decent predominancy of the Italian spelling of the name in English scholar literature according with a wider diffusion of academic publications about Veranzio "engineer" and "inventor" respect publications about his five-language dictionary (where Vrancic is a bit more common). 1 - On these basis, 2 - remembering the reasons added by Vegaswikian in relisting the req move; 3 - after seeing that on the last RM, citing Ncmvocalist, there were a not properly clear consensus (that is one that is not immediately obvious) is not necessarily a lack of consensus, 4 - after last Ucucha's comments -when the RM was still open- stating: "We have gotten many more sources about this man's life to check, and GTBacchus has concluded (I haven't reviewed the data myself, but have no reason to doubt his impartiality) that the sources mostly support "Veranzio" as the name of the article."[7]";
after all this the move was expected, it seems that all of us know how should be closed the RM, but now we are discussing to open a fresh one. I agree, as I said, but I'm asking why.. to get the same results? Isn't better to move the article under the right title per sources and then open an RfC? I need to know your opinion about it. Cheers. - Theirrulez (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hahahaha... GTB is already gone straight to open a fresh RM! Bye Arbitrairily0, see you soon! - Theirrulez (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Alright, it looked like the second move request seemed to clear things up nicely, and so I've closed it as 'page moved'. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taunton Fire Department

Please re-read the discussion and correct your closure. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is what you're referring to? I passed over the nominator's withdrawal, for one. Sorry, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you muchly! I'll take care of the merge in the next day or two. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome, there's no rush - thanks for letting me know! Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, new person to add

Hello, I am working on a project for London film premieres for a summer sponser and see Mark had a page before though it was deleted for lack of notability. However, I would like to add a new page for Mark Boardman and have already citiated below many missing articles regarding his TV, radio and other work which make me positive he should have a permanent page here. He would be a big asset to Wikipedia and a great resource. There are a number of people rallying for him to get one and his recent press in the papers and magazines should attribute this.

Having researched, I have used sources and the below is the draft I would like to submit.

Mark Boardman

Mark Boardman (born 1980) in Essex is a entertainment & showbiz expert spending 6 years as a journalist. As a self Gossip columist[2] and Paparazzi [3] Since 2007 he has been most Notable for his numerous TV appearances and celeb based documentaries.

His first experienced a major TV role as a chat show host on Homemade for T4 [4] which ran for 1 series where alongside his showbiz mate [5] Dave Berry modestly claims

Mark; as a celebrity hunter is really the star of the show and we are on the same level

[6]. His appearance on Channel 4[7] lead to a big interview with Miquita Oliver [8] & co presenters. Mark has appeared on over a dozen TV programmes including This Morning [9] where he discussed ways to get A-listers on your side and the art of autograph collecting on " Collectors corner ".

In 2003, he appeared on the The Terry and Gaby Show [10] where as a audience member was invited up on stage by Gaby Roslin [11] a fellow vegetarian to talk about his weekly experience of attending the show and meeting stars including Michael Buble [12]

For the BBC [13] in 2007 he filmed a TV documentary regarding London film premieres and discussed why celebs are so in demand right now, he then went on to meet Hugh Grant[14] when filming for Inside out[15]

and shared experiences of his lifestyle.

Having met over 3500 celebrities in London [16] on the red carpet [17] where only a superstar [18] is worthy of shaking his hand. Mark was hired as the roving celebrity reporter for [19]and his first broadcast was for the Britawards [20]2007.[21]
Celebrity Quotes

Steve Jones [22] on Mark

one of Tv's rising stars

June Sarpong [23]

Mark is gonna be a stars

Saidwhat website [24] quotes Mark as saying to [25]

Can you record a answerphone message for me

External links
His official website [26]
[27] Quotes Mark as saying to [28] "Can you record a answerphone message for me"
A regular of Local radio and a celeb pundit and star blogger, Mark is regarded by many and listed as a minor UK celebrity on Pb works[29] Since 2004 Mark has run his own celebrity / London film premiere website and has nearly 3000 followers on Twitter [30]

The Guardian [31] online wrote a piece [32]

Mark Boardman is trying vainly to keep up appearances. He started going out of his way to meet celebrities 19 years ago, though he stretched the definition of celebrity somewhat with a snap of Russ Swift - the record holder for parking in narrow spaces, as if you didn't know. But Mark has now become a sage in the art and recently grabbed the autographs of Ewan McGregor - "he's partial to a choc Magnum" and pop "star" Lee Ryan - "who I watched on the backstage bouncy castle with Jodie Marsh" at Popbeach. Classy.


Tvstarlondon (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

References
  1. ^ Quest, Falk (2009). The Ratio Illusion. Norderstedt: BoD. p. 224. ISBN 9-783839-1-139066. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossip_columnist
  3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paparazzi
  4. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T4_(Channel_4)
  5. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Berry_(presenter)
  6. ^ http://www.echo-news.co.uk/echofeatures/1134316.youre_not_big_until_mark_has_your_scribble/
  7. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T4_(Channel_4)
  8. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miquita_Oliver
  9. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Morning
  10. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terry_and_Gaby_Show
  11. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaby_Roslin
  12. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_buble
  13. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC
  14. ^ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grant
  15. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Out_(BBC_TV_series)
  16. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London
  17. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_carpet
  18. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstar
  19. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Radio_Norfolk
  20. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_Awards
  21. ^ http://audioboo.fm/boos/107992-bbc-radio-interview-with-london-film-premiere-guy-mark-boardman
  22. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jones
  23. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_sarpong
  24. ^ http://www.saidwhat.co.uk/quotes/celebrity/mark_boardman
  25. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiera_knightly
  26. ^ http://http://www.ukfilmpremieres.co.uk
  27. ^ http://www.saidwhat.co.uk/quotes/celebrity/mark_boardman
  28. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiera_knightly
  29. ^ http://www.twitter.pbworks.com/MinorCelebrities
  30. ^ http://www.twitter.com/markmeets
  31. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk
  32. ^ on his antics http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2006/mar/15/lookwhosgawki
Hullo! Well, my concern with this subject is that a deletion discussion held on him in February. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Boardman determined that he didn't have adequate notability at the time. However, you're welcome to recreate the page (click here) to see if he'll pass a second deletion discussion. Just remember to only include lots of reliable sources. We'll keep in touch, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, he can't - it's salted after a lot of re-creation - see previous discussion here. ( Nobody did anything to the incubated version, and in due course I deleted it.) I have tidied this up a bit and put it in a user page for him, and will give him some advice (including not to spam the same request across multiple talk pages). I don't think this has much chance - there is nothing new here, main claimed celebrity still seems to be as a celebrity-chaser; but Mr Boardman has a determined SPA fan-club - Celebritypresenter (talk · contribs), TVfanaticlady (talk · contribs) Celebrityreview (talk · contribs) and now Tvstarlondon (talk · contribs). I have told this one I am unconvinced, but may need to point him to you as the AfD closer for a second opinion; it may end up at DRV. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah John, I already forgot about our prior contact. Thanks for catching me up ... again. :) I'll know how to handle this now, sorry and thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Salt

Would you mind salting Kiwamu Karate Do? It has been created three times in less than 24 hours with same inappropriate material? It has been speedily deleted all 3 times but continues to be created. I thought you should know that I made a new comment in the section we normally converse in. Mr. R00t Talk 23:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry for the delay! It looks like attempts at creation have since died down though, but let me know if it comes back up again. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dipper well

Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Wizardman, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sailing at the 1896 Summer Olympics

Hi, Maybe I understand the redirection of the above article. But now the information of it is lost (not stated in the refered to article). Please advice?NED33 (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, Sailing at the 1896 Summer Olympics was redirected because of a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sailing at the 1896 Summer Olympics. However, the article's content is still available, and can be merged into 1896 Summer Olympics. Let me know if you need help with this, or consider opening a thread at Talk:1896 Summer Olympics. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I consider to make a new article about "Sailing at the Summer Olympics that didn't" or something like that (i am open for suggestions), after I have upgrades all of the "Sailing at the .... Summer Olympics (I am starting 1932 this week). In this one I like to put the information about the discussions, programs, ratio on why not and so on, on Sailing at the Olympiads I, III, VI, XII and XIII. Is that a valid idea? How do I approach that without having the risk of deletion again? Please advice?NED33 (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The thing is that consensus was determined (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sailing at the 1896 Summer Olympics) to redirect the article because sailing never actually occurred at this Olympic Games. As DitzyNizzy (talk · contribs) said in the discussion, "as the nom states, there was no sailing at the 1896 Olympics. Thus we shouldn't have an article for it." Please let me know if this doesn't make sense, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

can i see the contents of an article you deleted?

hi, can i see the contents of an article you deleted? the article is called "Bullshido" ... is there any way I can see its contents as there was some credible & very verifyable content in it which I think can be resurrected in moderation by someone like myself who knows a lot about the subject... please drop a msg on my user talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BWDP (talk • contribs) 11:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done - I have emailed the content to you for your viewing. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thanks a lot... are u sure there were no images in the article? i can't see any in your code but i thought there were some last time i checked —Preceding unsigned comment added by BWDP (talk • contribs) 13:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Correct, I didn't see any files either when I looked through some of the page's history (meaning I looked for files that might have been removed). When was the last time you saw this image? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Ahh Maybe I am thinking of the sister article McDojo which was also deleted. One of them definitely had a few good images (am still waiting for feedback from the guy who deleted that one). Thanks a lot... the words on the Bullshido article are very useful, I'll get back to work now. Cheers BWDP (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem at all. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

ACC

Gentle nudge  7  03:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done - thanks! ;) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Westling

Hello, Arbitrarily0! I suppose you are one of the administrators who normally deal with requested moves and that I came to the right place. I have a question about moving a certain article. On 15 June, a user requested that the article about Daniel Westling be moved to Prince Daniel, Duke of Västergötland. Westling will marry the Crown Princess of Sweden tomorrow; the moment he marries her, he will cease being Daniel Westling and will become Prince Daniel, Duke of Västergötland. Therefore, the article should be moved tomorrow (preferably around 16:00 but not before 15:30). Nobody has opposed the move, so there is no need to wait for seven days; in fact, we shouldn't wait for seven days so that we don't risk being inaccurate. Would you be able to perform the move? Thanks in advance, Surtsicna (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hiya Surtsicna! I've commented at Talk:Daniel Westling#Requested_move. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

List of resignations listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of resignations. Since you had some involvement with the List of resignations redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I have commented. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone rustled up some more Lists of resignations, so now it seems that dab is the best bet. Mind checking it out to see if you agree, and perhaps speedily closing if you decide to change your !vote from keep? –xenotalk 18:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 Done - thanks for the update Xeno! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of site

Arbitrarily, Can't thank you enough for restoring the article about my work. The deletion seemed quite 'arbitrary' to me. I do appreciate what you have done so very much. Which does not mean that the article can't be improved. Someone else did this for me and I have no expertise in how to adjust Wikipedia sites. If you could 'adopt' me in this case, I would appreciate that. With very kind regards. Peter --Waverleywattle (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC) --Waverleywattle (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to adopt you. Just note that your draft is currently under a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Waverleywattle/Peter Nicholson (poet and author), where you are welcome to comment there. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrarily, Thank you for getting back to me. As I have no expertise in formatting for Wikipedia, I am in your hands. Thanks for 'adopting' me! All I ask is that the article be treated dispassionately in the spirit of the people's encyclopedia. Peter.--Waverleywattle (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. Let me know what I can help you with, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arbitrarily. I have just put up a justification for why I don't think the article about my work should be deleted. If you could help me out here, I would appreciate it, since I'm not sure how to proceed beyond this point. Thanks.--Waverleywattle (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey, sorry for the delayed reply! Well, since I was away the discussion was closed as delete as there was a consensus to do so. Let me know, however, if you're still interested in pursuing this subject (since this reply is now nearly 3 weeks late). Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Userfied band article

Hi. Re WP:REFUND#Skye Prison, do you think it's really kind to userfy an article like this? It just raises expectations that it can be made acceptable by some kind of rewriting, whereas they are actually far short of WP:BAND. While not actually citing WP:No one cares about your garage band, (which I have actually been driven to do for the first time recently) I would have been inclined to tell him that just being "a real band with real fans" isn't enough and he should read WP:BAND and come back when they have achieved that standard. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I was trying to be as kind as I could and didn't intend to mislead. My thought was that, as long as it's not advertising, this user is welcome to have their own article in their userspace. It also gives the topic some time to incubate. Obviously, since you were first to handle this situation, if you think something I did was mean, you have my full permission to undo it. Best regards John, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
No, certainly no need to undo - we just have a different approach to what is kindest for the newbie. I prefer to userfy or incubate only if there seems to me to me some prospect of an article resulting - for instance, if it looks as if it might actually be notable and just needs adding some sources. In this case the band's total achievement seems to be "They can be found playing around the Kc area". Also, I think people sometimes end up happily maintaining their userfied article as "our wiki page", contrary to WP:FAKEARTICLE, though as long as we can put {{userspace draft}} on the top, I suppose that doesn't really matter. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Alright, sounds good John. Sorry, also, about the reference to you in my wikibreak notice. I meant to ask you for permission beforehand, but lost track of time. Thanks for following through so generously. I hope this did not cause too much extra work for you. Know that I'd be happy to return the favor for you anytime. Take good care John, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Large adoption backlog! Can you help?

There is currently a backlog of 21 users seeking to be adopted in the Adopt-a-user program.

--SwarmTalk 06:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never adopted someone before but I'm fairly confident that I can help. As you can see Arbitrarily is on a wikibreak. Mr. R00t Talk 17:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to take a look into this shortly, as it seems there is still a noticeable backlog. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Fictional history of Spider-Man

Following three attempts at having this page deleted, a number of editors collaborated on bringing this multiply-tagged article up to policy and guideline standards of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Comments were solicited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite since May 26, and a final draft, created over a month of editorial input, was completed and put up for final comment at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite and replacement on June 25. On June 30, this consensus version, which confirms to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), will replace the current page Fictional history of Spider-Man. As you have contributed to that page, we wanted to alert you to the opportunity for final comments. Thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Following a month-long process of multiple editors to have "Fictional history of Spider-Man" conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), one editor has objected and wishes for the article, which has been the subject of three deletion discussions, to remain as is. Alternately, the proposed new version appears at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. Your input, as an editor involved in the deletion discussion, is invited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite and replacement. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenebrae (talk • contribs)

Alright, thanks for the update on developments. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I am an old editor of CPIM article and I am feeling that a kind of Groupism is done against me and other fellow editors like Soman, Ravivajpayee and NithinJ, by Deshbhakta and a mediator Mr. Root.
Deshbhakta(many users doubts that he has an rightwing agenda to push) is given a free hand by Mr. Root, Mr. Root warned other editors time to time, when they reverted the attempts of vandalism of Deshbhakta.
Please if I will be get block(as Deshbhakta, Mr. Root are claiming from months), then it will prove that "Wikipedia has no place for Ideas and freedom of Editing, Freedom of Research", but just it has a sympathy for GROUPISM and SUPPORT to POV Vandalism.

Please in any case if you come to mediate, then make a balanced opinion after talking to all the editors of that article, I am giving a list below.

Warm Regards
-Viplovecomm (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done a very bad job at mediating that article and apologize. I now realize that all I did was escalate the problem further instead of just getting the hell out of there. Mr. R00t Talk 20:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Viplovecomm, it is with great regrets that I must inform you that I am withdrawing my wish to mediate in this case. My reason is that I am too utterly out of touch with the subject of the case to neutrally help the involved editors reach a conclusion. I'm very sorry about this, but I hope it is for the best interests of the case. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Another potential adoptee

Hello Arbitrarily0, I believe this should be fine to wait until you've returned. I see you have a lot of adoption requests; so, if you would rather not take this on, could you pass it along to another willing adopter (unless another willing adopter is watching this and will step in)? User:Shrik88music is having difficulties with editing. S/he appears to be a non-native speaker of English. Anyway, I feel an experienced adopter would be capable of helping him/her better than I am able to. Obviously, it's contingent on him/her wanting to be adopted, but I think s/he has shown a willingness to ask for, and accept, help. Would you, or someone, mind approaching User:Shrik88music with an offer to help?  Chickenmonkey  19:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well, I'm not accomplished at adopting users but I'm fairly good with languages- I know about 15- and am very handy with Google Translate. I'd be willing to deal with an editor even if they have bad grammar and are making mistakes. I can ask on their talk page. Mr. R00t Talk 20:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
If you're interested, that's great!  Chickenmonkey  20:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I contacted them on their talk page. Mr. R00t Talk 20:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot R00t! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Ocean surface waves.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ocean surface waves.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --MGA73 (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the update. I'll also look into the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ocean surface waves.jpg. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Boba Phat

Hi Arb!

I vote to reopen Boba Phat based not only on validity of links but also a mention on Wikipedia's own REAL Boba Fett page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boba_Fett . Read the last line in the last paragraph under the "#3 Reception" heading - if he has enough visibility & notoriety to be FEATURED ON the ACTUAL Boba Fett's page, CLEARLY this establishes credibility on an entire different level than considered previously. Also there were SO many KEEPS I believe this MUST be reopened for discussion, particularly because he is already about to be a feature at Comic Con SDCC in less than 2 weeks. Additionally, the HARD COPIES of "Sign on San DIego" and several other links that no longer work STILL EXIST, and once the page is reopened, these citations can be updated. Additionally if you review the (lengthy - expressing MUCH arbitration) AfD, you will see there are MORE than enough keeps. With this new discovery of a DIRECT MENTION on THE ACTUAL Boba Fett's page, it is OBVIOUS Boba Phat as a cosplay character deserves to be recognized as the most highly-known Star Wars cosplayer coveted & discussed EXTENSIVELY in interviews with both celebrities, media & the general underground cosplay culture. Isn't making Wikipedia as factual as possible the goal? Why leave out arguably the most famous cosplay character of the present generation? Thank you for your consideration. I DID file a review for Undeletion as well but wanted to express this to you, as were the unfortunate one to be put in such a lengthy review process, as the notoriety of Boba Phat remains strong & is simply only growing.-SheighZam (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! Thanks for your interest in this subject. Note, though, that some topics have only enough notability to merit mention in a parent article, rather than meriting an entire article themselves. However, I'd be interested in taking a look at some of the sources you have for Boba Phat's growth, if any are online. Another option is just to try to start a new Boba Phat article yourself, although know that it may be at risk for deletion. Let me know what I can do, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

State church of the Roman Empire

Hi. Could you remove the AfD banner from State church of the Roman Empire given your action on the talk page? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, my mistake. I assumed it had been removed automatically - thanks for letting me know! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Arbitrarily0, thanks for taking care of the closure. If you have any advice (as a disinterested party) on how to proceed with the article itself please feel free to share. I'd like to go back now and keep trying to move the article forward (hopefully getting it to GA) but I honestly have no idea how to deal with the fact that there will always be parties that will need to see the topic as invalid (I once got a controversial article to GA, but my success unfortunately amounted to wearing down the opposition, which is unlikely in this case). --Mcorazao (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mcorazao! Thanks for taking an interest in improving this article. If the article is improved enough so as to pass a GA review, I suspect there will be little worry about the article being deleted or merged. The key here is the article's sources. Good and plentiful sources will help keep a neutral point of view. Good and plentiful sources will help establish the topic's notability (making merging is unnecessary). Good and plentiful sources will give this article a narrower and more specific topic. In other words, the first place to start is with improved sourcing. :) I hope this answer isn't too vague. Let me know what you're thinking, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, no, what I'm asking is how to deal with those who will continue to want to tear down the article by finding ways to end-around Afd. Sources only matter if the people involved are willing to read them honestly (which has already proven not to be the case). And I cannot prevent individuals from continuing to put in tags and/or making semi-malicious edits (so far the malicious edits have been minimal but I expect if I try to push the article forward that will change). Ideally I would like to settle the direction of the article before investing too much more time on looking up page numbers in the references and so forth (i.e. make good use of my time). The other controversial article I took to GA was a nightmare (I took several others to GA and FA). It didn't matter how many references I put in that other article. I tried to find reasonable compromises but ultimately it was a war of attrition and the opposing factions simply got tired of fighting. I never felt good about how that ended but at least the article did go to GA.
In this case, though, I don't think that there will ever be an end to people who need to see this topic as invalid, either because of religious persuasions or for nationalistic reasons. But honestly I think the topic is an important one, which is why I was willing to delve into it knowing that it would be controversial. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to just keep doing what you're doing. If the sources exist, I think this article is a great potential candidate for GA - well worth your time. Continue to invite civil discussion on the talk page in order to avoid conflicts. Other than that, keep up the good work! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge Discussion

There is a merge discussion going on here. The basis of the merge is whether or not Jack Conte should be merged with the Pomplamoose article. We need someone who unbiasedly close the discussion since it's been going on long enough. Thanks. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 13:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI I've already merged the material, but I can undo it if that is the outcome. Jujutacular T · C 13:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 Done - I've closed the discussion in favor of merging the page, as it seemed that was the way of the consensus. I hope this is a decision everyone can live with. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not mad or anything. I wanted an unbiased party involved in closing it. People who have an interest in the subject may want something for it in a way that someone like you wouldn't. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I assumed you probably weren't, but I'm glad to hear it for sure anyway. I understand. Feel free to stop by anytime. Best regards mate, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Illegals Program

[8] While i have no issue with the re-naming of the article, the thing is that the new (or rather, old) name does require a different wording of the lead; otherwise the latter looks quite incongruous.Axxxion (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not super familiar with the topic, but I gave it a shot anyways. See here. It's not perfect, but I think it makes more sense with the new title now. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please

You closed a recent {{afd}} on Moroccan training camp. Would you please userify this article, its full history, and talk page, to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/Moroccan training camp? Geo Swan (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done - as you wish! :) Note that the article did not have a talk page, I believe. Take good care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I added {{noindex}}. Geo Swan (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Splendid! Best wishes, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

3 cheers

Moving the illegals program article and saying "rough consensus" is a good start for administrative terminology. Too many discussions proclaim consensus when there is not. A rough consensus is not quite right but far better than what others have used. You are smart! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my intellectual deficiency, but are you saying closing it with a rough consensus was the correct thing to do? :) Yours confuzzled, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I am saying that many admins do it far less well, especially if they claim consensus when there was not a clear one. For example, if it were 40-60% with decent reasoning on both sides. I'm not sure if "rough consensus" is the best but it's certainly better than saying "the result is keep" or "the result is re-name" or "the consensus is re-name". Also, I actually disagree with the decision (I was in favor of spy swap, but not prisoner swap). But the decision is not wacky. Rather than fight the decision, I will edit the article according to the title, that is, concentrate on the spy program and not emphasize the swap, at least for now. There are many swap details but, for now, I will edit pertinent SVR information...unless the 13th illegals agent gets me first! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Oops, I just counted. The vote was 5-5-1. The one was Neutron, who wanted Illegal or Spy Ring. For now, I'm just concentrating on improving the Illegals part of the article and can worry about the swap details at some future date. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, I see, well thanks! And keep up the good work mate! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've also started a re-write of the article which will take me probably a month. It needs work. For example, escaped agent Christopher Metsos was under the list of people swapped. Hah-he escaped. Makes WP look like amateurs. There are also many other problems. This is not edit warring but fixing up things. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This I get! ;) All sounds super-duper to me, go for it! Let me know if there's anything I can do. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey Arbitrarily0

Hey Arbitrarily0! You made a note on my talk page saying hi and I figured I should reply. How are my edits? Am I doing well? Lately I've been helping with reverting vandalism and AfC. I watch the admin dashboard- even though I'm not an admin :)- and help out new users a bit. Have a nice evening as it appears to be 10:40 by you. Cheers! Mr. R00t Talk 02:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I did have a nice evening, thank you! =) But now it is morning! I took a look at some of your edits and see no problems. One thing that I especially like is that you are very willing to accept constructive criticism on your talk page. That will make you into an extremely knowledgeable and experienced editor in no time. Keep up the good work friend! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Mr. R00t Talk 19:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Surely, take care! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Victoria

If I read it correctly, the move request deal with Victoria City (disambiguation), instead of directly dealing with Victoria City. Second, Victoria, Hong Kong was suggested only by one participants. Third, the common name for the Hong Kong city is Victoria City, and rarely simply as Victoria. There was consensus to merge Victoria City (disambiguation) into Victoria, but no consensus on the Hong Kong city. And finally, after moving from Victoria City to Victoria, Hong Kong, many incoming links are now directed to the wrong material. 112.118.185.139 (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. What do you suggest be done? Maybe another move request for Victoria City, Hong Kong? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
There was consensus on merging Victoria City (disambiguation) into Victoria. All other moves should be restored to the status quo ante, since there is no consensus. I suppose it's better for the participants to re-request by themselves. 116.49.137.19 (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The discussion seemed to agree that moving the page to a title with the 'Hong Kong' disambiguator was a good idea. However, consensus was unclear on whether Victoria City, Hong Kong or Victoria, Hong Kong was the better location. A second discussion to discuss only this point would helpful to see if one is better preferred over the other. Your thoughts? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

List of football players with domestic, continental and world titles

Could you temporarily restore this page: List of football players with domestic, continental and world titles ? There is some links and information that I wish to extract from it. GoldDragon (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done - the page has been restored to your userspace at User:GoldDragon/List of football players with domestic, continental and world titles. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

wrongful deleted

why did you delete the glen jackson collegiate and hurdler page?? everything on it was true!!! [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.236.101 (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Glen Jackson (Collegiate wrestler and hurdler) was deleted because there was a consensus to do so at an articles for deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Jackson (Collegiate wrestler and hurdler). Sorry for this delayed reply, I am back in town now. Let me know what I can clarify or if I can help in any way. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello there, on the adoption list you were always adopting and I was wondering if I could be one of your adopted. Thanks,Luibsasocer (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly!! Let me know what I can do for you anytime! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot!Luibsasocer (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Zero problem whatsoever! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Pinjarra#Why was there such a delay?

Please respond. Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 16:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have now done so. :) Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

First Article!

Hello, I have just created my first article and I want you to look it over and give me your comments Here it is: Star Wars: In Concert. Oh, and how do you make a redirect?Luigi Boy ScoutsSoccer 18:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hiya! I meant to respond to this earlier in the day but things got away from me, sorry. I see you've figured out how to make redirects now? As for your article, it looks pretty good. It seems like the subject has ample notability, but one suggestion would be to incorporate some more secondary sources (such as from here). Also, to make sure that the article isn't an orphan, try introducing internal links pointing to the page from other articles. Let me know what I can clarify or help with. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have made some internal links pointing to it, such as on Star Wars music, also that link you gave me really helped in backing up my info.--Luigi Boy ScoutsSoccer 23:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Glad to hear it! Anything else I can help you out with? Take good care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for adoption

Dear Arbitrarily0, I was wondering whether I would be able to take up your offer for adoption on Wikipedia. I would very much look forward to it, I have learnt a lot of Wikipedia, having been a member for a month or so but still have a lot to learn. I feel that you are very experienced, and I was looking for an admin aswell and I though that you were very good and that I would learn a lot under you. I hope you accept my request to you. Thank you very much. Kind Regards, HelpingHandTalk 11:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! I'd be happy to adopt you! Stop by any time with any questions you may have. You are welcome to bug me as much as you like! :) Is there any particular area you'd like to start? Hope to see you around here soon, regards! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I need help with vandalism reverts etc., and need to learn to use Twinkle properly without getting blocked from using it. Thank you for accepting my request. --HelpingHandTalk 13:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The complete instructional guide for Twinkle is at Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc - anything in particular I can clarify? Don't worry, as long as you don't make mistakes on purpose you won't become blocked from using it. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
No I have already been blocked and am currently blocked from using Twinkle. --HelpingHandTalk 15:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, you have? Can you point me to a page where I can take a look at this? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean, a link to where I went wrong?
--HelpingHandTalk 07:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh no, sorry, just a link to a page that records your block or any discussion about your block. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The link is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thehelpinghand&oldid=376053194#Blacklisted_from_using_Twinkle and was deleted so is in my history.
--HelpingHandTalk 17:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see, thanks! Have you contacted User:Beeblebrox about the matter? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreal

I thought admins were supposed to consider the quality of arguments in deletion discussions but based on your no consensus close in the Eastwood in pop culture AFD apparently I was incorrect. Here I thought we held ourselves to a higher standard than articles sourced to eBay. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This hurts. The article is in awful shape, but a number of participants in the discussion maintained that rewriting/sourcing was a better solution to deletion. Kindly, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

why did you delete Harvest?

why did you delete Harvest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.150.5 (talk)

Harvest (time tracking software) was deleted because of a consensus to do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvest (time tracking software). Let me know if I can clarify something or if there's anything I can help you out with. Kindly, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arb, I originally wrote the article and was in the process of editing it to meet notability standards before the consensus was made for deletion. Harvest launched in 2006 and was the first time tracking software to run as software as a service. Historical reference: http://www.workhappy.net/2006/05/harvest.html What's also notable about Harvest is that it was created without an in-house designer, but it's design is savvy and usable. Notable designers have remarked on this like Whitney Hess and Marc Drummond. Reference from Marc Drummond: http://marcdrummond.com/user-experience/2010/07/28/event-apart-minneapolis-whitney-hess-diy-ux-give-your-users-upgrade The slides on Harvest from Whitney Hess are available here: http://www.slideshare.net/whitneyhess/diy-ux (Slides 5-18) There was also discussion of a lack of references by editors Nuujin and JamesBWatson. I plan to add the aforementioned references to the article to allay their concerns. Please let me know if it's possible to make these changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinath10 (talk • contribs)
Greetings! My concern is still that the company has not received enough significant coverage from reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. My recommendation would be to start writing your own draft of the article at User:Srinath10/Harvest (time tracking software). I can restore the old article to User:Srinath10/Harvest (time tracking software) if you like. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I would appreciate it if you could restore there. I'll work on the article. Should I contact you after the edits?
No problem. You may view and edit the content at User:Srinath10/Harvest (time tracking software). And sure, contact me afterwords. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the move. I've edited the page and added references where appropriate. The significance of Harvest is really in the design and use. Please let me know your thoughts. I'd love to get it back up on Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinath10 (talk • contribs)
You're welcome. My only suggestion would just be to include as many secondary and reliable sources as possible in order to demonstrate significant coverage. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Arb. I added more relevant sources. What is the best way to have the article reconsidered for publication? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinath10 (talk • contribs)
Because the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvest (time tracking software) was found unanimously, I'd rather see this go through a deletion review to gain a 'counter-consensus', if you will. My suggestion would be to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review, and follow the instructions there, making sure to link to User:Srinath10/Harvest (time tracking software). Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I've put the article up for deletion review and would very much appreciate your consideration! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinath10 (talk • contribs)
Thanks a lot for the update! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Harvest (time tracking software)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Harvest (time tracking software). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Srinath10 (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, for your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, I truly did not see a consensus there. Thank you for putting so much work into the article. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome. Thanks for the appreciation of the work!!!!!! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't mention it - take great care! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for the welcome. I signed up several months ago and was editing quite a bit but my work schedule has been very busy the past few months and I just didn't have the time. I don't remember seeing this Take me back section before. Is this new, or has there always been an archiving mechanism in place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesHilt62 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You're ... welcome! As far as I know, the 'take me back' link (which is fairly new, since May 13, 2010) has to do with switching between Wikipedia's different 'skins'. I'm not very familiar with it since I still use the old 'monobook' skin. You can see Wikipedia:Vector for more information. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Adoption

I am looking to learn the ropes of Wiki and make sure I am providing relevant good information. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbarnes13 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to adopt you! Let me know what I can help you with! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ola's Kool Kitchen

Hi. I did a lot of work on Olas'Kool Kitchen. It was deleted. I'm new to wiki so I wasn't sure where to ask for this. But I'm requesting could you Userfy this page because there will be more links in the future and I'm hoping I can with some administrators help possibly get it back up. I didn't get to vote on the deletion. I just think maybe it was to soon for it to go live. Thank you!--Aspland11 (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The page has been userfied to User:Aspland11/Ola's Kool Kitchen. Good luck!! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your help in this matter. I will try and get better sources so yes maybe in the future it can be a real article.--Aspland11 (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good! Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for World Chess Hall of Fame

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rlevse. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK

Hi, thanks for reminding me, I've been very busy recently. I've put in some new suggestions so hopefully that is sorted now. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 16:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks!! I've added another alternate based off of your ALT3, and I've verified the lot. Take good care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wintzer Building

Thanks for the compliments :-) As you may remember reading, this was just designated a historic site last month, and most historic sites near where I live were designated years and years ago; I don't often get the chance to photograph or write about just-recently-designated historic sites like this. Nyttend (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - that's a very unique opportunity! Thank you for taking advantage of it! Best regards and take great care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Professor / professor

Hmm, whichever one I pick I suspect someone will disagree with me! I think, looking at Wikipedia:MOS#Titles of people, that it's being used as a title ("he was the first Professor of Russian in Britain"), and so takes a capital letter, but I see the argument that it's only a generic reference and so should be "professor of Russian". Oh joy... Regards, BencherliteTalk 21:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Very curious. I suppose it's best to use it however it appears in the reference - is the 'P' capitalized in "Blue plaque honours Britain's first professor of Russian". Oxford Mail. 26 October 2009. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, left out the url from the reference... "no", is the answer (I think). BencherliteTalk 23:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! In that case I lean towards the lower case version. He was a professor, a professor of Russian, the first professor of Russian - I suppose if it was a title it would be the "First Professor of Russian in Britain". Your thoughts though? It is indeed a minor point. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Fine by me, and changed. Registrar of the University of Oxford, my latest project, is now at TDYK, incidentally, if you're in a Oxford "mood"... BencherliteTalk 23:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I suppose I'll be able to handle one more education-related review ;)  Done! Cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Tag

Howdy! In a somewhat strange coincidence, I've just been finishing off work on Tag (advertisement) myself in my sandbox. I've expanded the article you created and nominated it at DYK listing you as creator (since you did beat me to the punch!) Feel free to comment on its nomination. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

... WOW!!!! It looks excellent! I'm sorry it worked out that way, I had no idea! I had planned on expanding it to DYK-size anyways, so perfect! One thing I'm particularly impressed about is the references you put in. What did you use to find most of the online sourcing? Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been writing articles on advertisements for a while now, so I've built up a sizable stable of sources which I know tend to hold good information on campaigns. Don't worry about the timing, it worked out nicely in the end. :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I see, very cool! Thanks again, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Review

Hey there, here for my 1 week checkup ;)

Could you review my handling of Khàtprinçia? I came upon it and quickly realized it was most likely a hoax, but I did not feel confident enough to delete on sight and opened an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khàtprinçia). Would you have deleted that on sight? Jujutacular talk 18:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see you've dropped by! :) I believe you handled this instance well. When dealing with deletion, it's almost always best to err on the side of caution. AfD discussions are perfect for verifying hoaxes because they allow multiple editors to research the subject. Sure, the article was speedy deleted anyways, but now there is a consensus to back up the decision. Here's a similar case involving myself. Please come back here as often as you like! Congratulations again on passing your RfA, you're doing splendidly! Best regards mate, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I had similar thoughts, thanks for reviewing. Jujutacular talk 18:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Anytime!! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Lancelot Ridley at DYK

I appreciate you authorising Lancelot Ridley at DYK; I do however sense a small degree of reluctance on your part to revert "...during Henry VIII's reign..." back into the hook, although you have agreed to this. I do not like to leave, even minor, issues unresolved. My feeling was that the phrase, at least for an English-person, makes the hook more powerful. I also feel that the phrase helps non-English-people with the historical-period context. I accept that it makes the hook less punchy. I also accept that the date, 1542, is probably redundant now. I would welcome your own view, as my motivation here is to learn. I am perfectly willing to change the hook on reasoned debate *smiles sweetly* --Senra (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah no worries. If another editor besides me had expressed a concern about it then I think it'd be worth looking into. But since no one did I think we're good to go. In fact, the hook is currently at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2! It's a very nice hook, excellent work! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Relist for discussion of No Gravity move

Hi. Please explain to me what this is. It appears that you are trying to relist a move proposal (No Gravity (2010 album) → No Gravity (Shontelle album)) for discussion, when the move has already taken place (3 days previously, 13 days after my proposal). You don't seem to have supplied a reason for this action. Further, you plunked your relist and signature right in between my nom and my sig. Now it looks like I've signed your signature. What is it you're trying to do (and really, why)? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem was that when Kimchi.sg (talk · contribs) moved the page, the talk page was moved along with it and the requested move discussion was never closed (like so). When I came across this talk page, seeing that the move request was still open (and linked to from Wikipedia:Requested moves), I decided to relist the discussion not knowing that a user had already moved it. I have finished unsplitting the talk pages and restoring all of the comments/history. Talk:No Gravity (Shontelle album) is all set now. As for the relisting method, it's done that way for the purposes of the move request bot (see here). You can see examples of this at Wikipedia:Requested moves, although some users do it in slightly different ways than others. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the explanation. I'd never seen the interjected relisting thing before, so I was thinking all sorts of uncharitable things about you. ;-) I have to say that I think I prefer the small-sig and separate-line technique myself (or maybe parentheses for the interjected stuff). That way everything doesn't all run together. But thanks again, and thanks, too, for cleaning up the move. Seems that the whole procedure was a lot more work than it was worth, but now it's done. Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem John! I think I'll look into using small relists in the future. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

More to look over

Could you take a look at Ceramic Watches(I need more sources)? Could you recommend me any Wikiprojects I could join too? Regards,--Luigi Boy ScoutsSoccer 19:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I had difficulty finding enough sourcing for ceramic watches. My suggestion might be to merge the content into watch; it's a fine piece of writing. As for the WikiProjects, what sort of stuff are you interested in? I see your signature contains "Boy Scouts" and "Soccer" - maybe you'd be interested in WikiProject Scouting and WikiProject Football. Since I see you're interested in creating new articles, take a look also into WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arbitrarily0. You have new messages at Fridae'sDoom's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Josh Zepps

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tag (advertisement)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Frank Budgen (director)

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter manager group help!

Hello Arbitarily! Could you help me get into the edit filter manager group. If so, comment and/or question me right here. Hope to get your help! Endofskull (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not super familiar with edit filter work, but I'll keep an eye on the discussion for you. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Endofskull (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem, sorry it didn't end up working out for you. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

help

i am having a tough time just putting up a well documented news story i do not know how to paste references to my previously rejected article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theparamaniac (talk • contribs) 13:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hiya! Are you referring to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shamsuddin Mahmood by chance? Maybe these sources are what you're looking for? Let me know, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kickapoo Joy Juice

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

London victory parade of 1946

I request you restore the original title. There was no consensus for the move. Most sources talk use the term victory parade and besides similar articles are under the Parade name, see: Moscow Victory Parade of 1945, 1982 London Victory Parade, 1815 London Victory Parade.  Dr. Loosmark  13:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus, if there is no opposition, requested moves do not need consensus in order to be closed as such. The request at least seemed sensible to me because London Victory Celebrations of 1946 was about more than just the victory parade. However, since the move was thus based off a silent consensus, you're welcome to open a second discussion to move the page back without delay. Best regards mate, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that a number of regular contributors to the article were banned from it recently, a fact skillfully exploited by Bobanni, so small wonder there was "no opposition". Anyway I am among those banned editors and I cannot open a second discussion.  Dr. Loosmark  13:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure what to say. When will the ban be lifted? Is there something very wrong with it's current title? Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, there is something very wrong with its current title, the previous title was better for the reasons I listed above.  Dr. Loosmark  22:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The point about sourcing is very valid indeed, but my concern was that the article seems to actually discuss more than just the parade itself. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Racism in the Palestinian territories

Hi. You may want to remove the rescue template from the fully protected article. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done - thanks Brewcrewer. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
no prob. you know i've got your back.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Appreciate it mate, happy editing! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Collaborative news on quippd

Hey, I noticed that you listed yourself as invoked in the WikiProject Journalism project, and I hoped that you could help out on another collaborative community edited project.

I run quippd, a collaboratively edited social news site, which mixes elements of Wikis, social networking, and social news sites. You can get some more information about what we are doing at: http://quippd.com/about/intro

Basically, we want to get good coverage on news stories, collaboratively edited, like Wikipedia. We are trying to take the ideas of WikiFactCheck -- to make news less biased and speedier (unlike something like Wikinews). By combining social elements to the project, we hope to bring the benefits of wiki enabled fact checking and npov ideas to the masses.

I hope you check us out -- and feel free to contact me with any questions, comments, or concerns.

--Yoasif (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll see if I get a chance to look into it. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi and thanks!

Arbitrarily0 has been made a member of the Order of the Mop,
for their work as an admin and is entitled to display
this award for being such a great admin,

Kind regards and happy editing,
Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for your tireless work on my user page. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Have a nice day and thanks again. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Aw cool! :) You're welcome and thank you, Fridae! Take great care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm starting some article tagging and I want to operate a bot that runs on AWB for tagging articles with no refs etc. with the relevant tag, I was wondering if you could help me. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 04:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Interesting! I'd start by asking around (maybe at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval) to see if this type of bot would A) work with AWB, and B) if the article tagging en masse would be wanted/approved. I don't know the answer to either of those questions offhand unfortunately, but it shouldn't be too hard to find out. Keep me posted, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks, oh um if you want a userbox for the Order of the Mop you can get it here. Have a nice day and thanks again. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Excellent! Take great care Fridae! :) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
You too! I just adopted a user MJ94 I was wondering if you could help me out here since this is my first adoptee. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 04:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd be happy to help. Let me know what I can do. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Well on his talk page I might have given him a bit too much information, I told him to create a new article by going to the Things you can do box on my userpage and creating an article which appeals to his interests. It was quite a big reply on his talk page. COuld you give me some advice? Thanks, Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 23:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Hiya, not to be a royal pain but with my userpage the boxes aren't all in the correct alignment, the licensing and committed identity boxes are aligned correct the ones above and the boxes below the main section are squashed to the left a bit, could you fix that perhaps, since I've been tweaking it and using the preview button but none of what I do seems to work. Thanks! Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 10:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Intersting, I finally got a chance to look at this today, but I'm not quite seeing what you're referring to. I wonder if my screen isn't large enough to allow the boxes to float around. All of the boxes look fine for me, which ones are not centered for you? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The boxes on the right, they aren't all aligned properly as with the long boxes. It's not the centre alignment it's the problem with the length of the boxes. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 23:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's a screenie of what it looks like. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 04:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah now I see what you mean! I assumed you were using Firefox to view it (which in Firefox everything is aligned perfectly). But no worries,  Done - see changes - now it works in Internet Explorer as well. =) Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your hard work in fixing up my userpage, I award you this barnstar. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 21:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Fridae'sDoom has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Woops, forgot to thumb the images, my bad. Thanks again Arbitrarily! Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 21:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Anytime Fridae. Take care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
You too Arbitrarily, next time I'll thumb my screenshots ;) Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 09:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Heehee, nah don't worry about the thumbing, 'twas an easy fix. :) Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Righto! I just thought that it was annoying for you since your talk page gets stretched. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 23:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, no worries, I've seen it all. :) Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh ok, with the whole adoption program I think my adoptee has enough experience, he seems to be pretty independent and confident. Should I ask if he still requires adoption or not? Regards, Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 02:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering, sorry to be a pest, but could you do the same thing to the top 2 boxes on my userpage as you did with the bottom boxes? I'm sorry for not asking before. Regards, Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 02:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand you're busy but if you can could you take a look at my request? I don't mean to be a pest but I almost destroyed my userpage trying to merge the boxes together like you did with my attribution. Simply copying and pasting the lower code to the top didn't work :S Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 02:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh wow my mistake! I wholly forgot about this. I'll take a look at everything first thing in the morning (EDST). So sorry, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Intersting, I can't seem to find the issue again. Do you think you could make as screenshot of what you're seeing? Which are the 'top two boxes'? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok will do. I'll thumb it this time :) Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 06:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Done, and I thumbed it this time! Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 06:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I think I see what you're saying: you want those two boxes to be connected but with a green border in between, correct? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes that is absolutely correct No rush on the request. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 05:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I just spent a lot of time on it and I still could not get it to work out perfectly. It has something to do with the "colspan"/"rowspan"s. It's more like what you want now, but I can't get the empty space between the boxes to go away. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks Arbitrarily, no worries take your time I can wait! :) Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 00:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok I managed to fix it, now the top's just a bit thicker, I went to Phaedriel's userpage and clicked the links of userpages she designed, User:Ajcfreak just managed to have the design I wanted :) problem is he/she has that thicker green-space at the top. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 04:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Just a friendly poke, was wondering if you know how to fix the thick green-space at the top. Thanks Arb! Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 06:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I looked at this for about a half hour and I still could not figure out what is causing that. I'm not sure what to tell you, it looks like your userpage has finally beaten me! X) I suppose you could try copying the code from mine? I'm not sure if that would do any good though. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah it does :S If only Phaedriel wasn't away, it's her design so she'd know how to fix it. I can't ask Rlevse, he's far too busy to worry about one person's userpage. I don't know who to ask :S —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 20:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
(outdent)

I've given up trying to fix my user page, it's causing me to rip my hair out (metaphorically anyway). I think I'll try and enlist the help of others. Thanks for your hard work Arb, much appreciated. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 23:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Heehee, sorry I wasn't more of a help. Happy editing and see you around! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
You were of great help :) take care! Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 6:15pm • 08:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
With the lack of active admin coaches and those who aren't full I was wondering if you would consider being my coach? I've contacted numerous admins and they've all been inactive for some time now. If not that's fine I thought I'd ask. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 8:36pm • 10:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Fridae! Thanks for asking but unfortunately I must decline. I think you will find that experience is the best coach, but keep asking around! I'm sure there's someone who'd be willing. My apologies, sorry to turn you down like this. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
It's alright. Thanks anyway. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:42pm • 06:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arbitrarily, I've got a question, how would I do a wiki-wide find and replace on AWB? I followed the instructions on the manual but it did nothing. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 6:57pm • 07:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Are these the instructions you used? I've used this function at simple.wiktionary and it seemed to work fine. Just enter the source code to 'find' and then the source code to 'replace' it with in the respective entry fields. After that you just start running AutoWikiBrowser as normal. Let me know how it goes. Also, I'm not sure that AutoWikiBrowser will be able to load put every single page in the queue, since there's so many. It would certainly take an excruciating amount of time to run. :) Hmmm. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
O.o I can't believe I missed that, also does running a bot on AWB require much programming knowledge? I'm considering making one. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:21pm • 06:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Fetchcomms fixed my userpage :) Thanks again for all the help you've given me :) Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 8:43pm • 09:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations! No problem! As far as AWB bots, they require no programming experience that I know of - just a familiarity with AWB. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :) Ok then, I'll get a BRFA for my bot account. Thanks again. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 12:50pm • 01:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
And I'm back... You're probably annoyed at me but one last request, do you think you could make the edges of my new userpage rounded? I tried adding the moz radius parameters but it didn't really work in the preview, I'm pretty hopeless with advanced markup... Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 4:50pm • 05:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Well let's see, I rounded the corners here, but I'm not sure what that actually did because of all the transclusions. Was this the wrong page? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, I actually like what you've done but could you also round the image as well it kinda sticks out, sorry about the transclusions, the corners I want rounded are at User:Fridae'sDoom/Intro. Thanks again Arbitrarily! Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:19pm • 08:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I didn't know image corners could be rounded - is there a userpage with this that I could take a look at? As for User:Fridae'sDoom/Intro, all done. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know I'll have to get back to you on that one! Thanks for getting that rounded :) much obliged Arbitrarily! Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 11:01pm • 12:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
the z-index element would be of help. The higher z-index number eg. 100 gets displayed in front. I'm too tired to modify this at the moment, it's 11 pm here >.< cya tomorrow! Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 11:03pm • 12:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The z-index element hardly does anything, I tried -1 but the image didn't display altogether. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 12:47pm • 01:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The only thing that can be done would be to round the image corners themselves at their current size. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 1:18pm • 02:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You've been loved by Fridae'sDoom

Hey there! Fridae'sDoom has loved you by placing a heart icon in the top-right corner of your userpage. Don't worry, it's not vandalism, but simply a small way to spread the WikiLove. If you don't really like it, feel free to revert it and make it go away, and no hard feelings; after all, it's just a small token of appreciation. If you like it, just add your name here, but again, there's no need to feel upset if you don't. Love and best wishes, Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 09:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for being such a great help to me :) Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 09:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Heehee! You're welcome Fridae, my pleasure! Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Take care my friend! Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 07:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrarily0Bot - Wikiproject banner tagging request

Hello Arbitrarily0! I just created a new task force dedicated to Latin American music. I was wondering if your bot can tag in every talk page listed in Category:Latin music along within the subcategories and articles. The main wikiproject is for the task force Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America with the banner in it. Thanks Magiciandude (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... tagging has begun, starting with category talk pages. Could take a day or three to complete. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention about the banner for the Latin music task force! I'm so sorry! >_< Magiciandude (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Alright. No worries, I'll try to add the pages to the task force in the second round. I'll keep you posted, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is the banner for the task force: {{WikiProject Latin America|class=|importance=|music=yes}}. Thanks! Magiciandude (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Now, why would your bot be tagging as "Latin" an anglophone singer (primarily to anglophones in the US) of the English-language Trinidadian genre of calypso? -- Hoary (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

False positives are always an issue, but wasn't this singer born in Latin America? It looks like he was tagged because he was categorized under Category:Trinidad and Tobago musicians. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
No, it's because of their membership in Calypsonians. (Category:Calypsonians <- Category:Calypso <- Category:Caribbean_music_genres <- Category:Latin_American_styles_of_music <- Category:Latin_music) This is one of the reasons I always ask for a complete list of categories, rather than recursing a "top level" category. For example, is Category:Indoor arenas in Honduras within the scope of Latin music? It's in the tree. –xenotalk 13:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The first round of banner taggings is only for WikiProject Latin America, meaning Category:Indoor arenas in Honduras is okay (but I still have to have the bot go through all of the pages again to add the music task force). I figured that since I was already tagging for WikiProject Latin America, I'd step up the recursion to level 4 (but only use 2 or maybe 3 recursions for the addition of the music task force to be safe). Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Another concern is that you are placing the banner above a WPBiography banner for a living person (e.g.). The WPBio banner should receive "top billing" when living=yes. Future releases of the Plugin should take care of this, but for now it should be addressed via custom find & replace. –xenotalk 14:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno, I should be able to address this at the same time I add the task force to the project banner. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I have the proper code at home but it's something like (regex, singleline)
Find:
\{\{WikiProject Latin America(.*?)\}\}
(.*?)\{\{WPBiography(.*?)\}\}

Replace:
$2{{WPBiography$3}}
{{WikiProject Latin America$1}}
add seasoning to taste. –xenotalk 17:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Ooo yay! Thanks a bunch!! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing. If you haven't already restarted the bot to include music task force banner, could you also add have bot include Portal:Latin America music? EDIT: Disregard what I said. Tagging the music task force automatically includes the portal. Magiciandude (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Alright cool, I should be able to start this soon. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 Doing... It shouldn't take too long this time. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 Done - 2791 page tagged under the Latin American music task force. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help! :) Magiciandude (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
No problemo! :) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Kickapoo Joy Juice props

Just wanted to post a comment here about your work on the Kickapoo Joy Juice article. Good work! I've started/expanded several articles about more obscure soft drinks and was considering starting an article on Kickapoo Joy Juice but never got a good "feel" as to how I should go about it. I'm glad (in this case) that my inaction prevailed, as your work on the subject is quite excellent. Regards, Bumm13 (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks Bumm! I really appreciate your kind words! Best regards mate, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Adopt Me?

:) BlackImperial (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to adopt you. Let me know where you'd like to start or any questions that you may have. Consider adding yourself to my list. Hope to see you around, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRYZOO

WikiProject Cryptozoology needs a bot to auto tag articles within our scope of interest. If you could fulfill that task that would be great!--Gniniv (talk) 05:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I can certainly help. All I need to start is a list of categories that contain pages for tagging. Let me know, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Michigan Stadium image

Hey, just a quick question about your revision to Michigan Stadium... is there any reason that the better quality picture has to be the one used in the infobox? The picture I put in the infobox was only intended as a placeholder, because the old image was no longer representative of how the stadium looked. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ohh! My mistake, now I see what your reasoning was! How's this file for the infobox? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
That works a lot better. Go for it! -- MichiganCharms (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Super! I've updated the image, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You broke the banner shell

Hi there, this edit broke the banner shell template, causing the article to appear to be not in any projects. I think the problem was that it moved the BLP=yes to the end, not between the template name and the 1= for the other banners. Can you check other edits into a bannershell to see if this was a one off error, or was it repeated elsewhere. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason it broke was because it moved the unnamed parameter value "blp" to the end. It thus became the new reigning value for 1=, whereas it was previously overwritten by the explicit 1= call that came later. The template was bad since this non-bot edit. –xenotalk 15:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining that. Haven't fully got my head around that template yet! The-Pope (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I am your father

Confused, see here. –xenotalk 15:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks xeno, I'll keep an eye on it now. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I still can't seem to grasp your reasoning for doing the two-step shuffle here. Now Darth Vader has Anakin Skywalker's history and talk page archives and vice-versa? –xenotalk 16:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't blame you, there's admittedly no reasoning to grasp. :) I just figured a flip-flop would be preferable to storing the old histories in extra subpages. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
(de-dent) - so was this fixed? - jc37 05:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
No... I think it should probably just be swapped back ... I was going to do it yesterday until I saw that there's an "unmerge" discussion going on! But no need to wait. –xenotalk 12:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for this. Has the swap been causing problems? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It's just made a mess of histories where none was required. I still don't understand why it was done in the first place, nor do I understand "extra subpages" ? The history could've just been kept at the redirect. –xenotalk 17:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Aren't the histories all fully intact? Both Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader had page histories before the move, so in order to keep the revision history of Anakin Skywalker at its new location, the old Darth Vader would have to be moved to a new location (I chose Anakin Skywalker to be that location, rather than a subpage of Talk:Darth Vader). Just redirecting Anakin Skywalker would have likened to a copy-paste move, since the article currently titled Darth Vader is made from the old page history of Anakin Skywalker. It's almost funny how terribly confusing this is to talk about. :) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
They're fully intact - at the wrong locations. The old revisions of Darth Vader should show old versions of the article entitled Darth Vader. The old revisions of Anakin Skywalker should show the old versions of the former article entitled Anakin Skywalker, since merged to Darth Vader. The attribution issues could have been easily overcome by using proper edit summaries and the {{mergedfrom}} and {{mergedto}} templates, without unnecessary moving to-and-fro. –xenotalk 17:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I guess my thinking was that it'd be preferable to have the history of article 'x' located at article 'x', even though the article used to be called article 'y'. The alternative, as you said, is to have the history of article 'x' located at article 'y', just because that's what it was originally called. Is one way more correct? Either way seems fine to me, whatever you see as most fit is best. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It's more like "article xy has the history of article y" and "redirect y has the history of article x". –xenotalk 17:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
You mean that (x2+2y)logxy is greater than ±∑[y-x⁄2]? ;) But wasn't xy the result of a merge of 'x' into 'y'? Seriously though, whatever you think best is fine with me. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
You're going to make me disappear in a puff of logic. –xenotalk 18:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
>POOF!< Where am I?
lol, you two make me laugh : )
Anyway, while I see the point, to reduce the confusion, I think going with what xeno suggested might be more user friendly in the future.
I'd do it, but I think he has a much better handle on how to do/undo/redo/whatever this : )
And thanks for my laugh of the day (I'm really going to have to make that talk page template up one of these days : ) - jc37 20:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think I've remedied the situation [9] [10]. In future the path of least resistance and confusion would be to redirect the article, cut and paste the talk page onto the new talk page, redirect the talk page, add the merged article's archives to the target's archive box and be sure to use proper attribution-laden edit summaries the whole way. –xenotalk 13:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks xeno, I appreciate it. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Please Adopt me

Hello, I am working on an Eglish class project. Could you help me to get started with Wikipedia? I just need some help on how to use it. If you agree, I will ask you when I need to know something. I will also show you mi articles to get your feed back. Thank You Jorge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsoto89 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Stop by anytime! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you adopt me?

Please adopt me Hi I am trying to edit an article in Wikipedia Spanish, but I want to avoid deletion of my edits through consensus in the discution page, but a user blocked the pageBredoteauU2 (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course! I'd be happy to! What exactly can I do for you? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I want to edit this page but a librarian of wikipedia has it blocked, with the excuse of vandalism, and he refuse to unblock the page, because he does not wants to accept references that talk about prizes awarded to Leopoldo Lopez, but he accepts a link where they talk in a negative way of Leopoldo Lopez, so if we are going to be neutral, we cannot praise the living character but also we cannot talk bad things about the character, and he blocked the page even when we had a discussion about it, the page is about Leopoldo Lopez BTW, i made a mistake of 3RR with this article, but mainly because my lack of experience in wikipedia Thanks for the help ThanksBredoteauU2 (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, you are talking about the Leopoldo López article? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I'm talking about the leopoldo lopez article in Spanish BredoteauU2 (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
As in this one then? Sorry for the confusion, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes that one BredoteauU2 (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, since I don't speak Spanish or have experience on the Spanish Wikipedia, I don't know of anything I can do. The only thing I can suggest is try talking to this user, and get third-party mediators involved if necessary. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Undiscussed Move

Can you please undo this move as it wasn't even discussed. There wasn't even any consensus? Ohlly (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I see you have contacted Vegaswikian (talk · contribs), the administrator who closed the discussion, about this. He/she will be able to answer your questions, but I'll keep an eye on the discussion. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Are page moves allowed if there were no evidence or voting provided? That should be moved back to Jessica Jung. I suggest you speak to the mover. Ohlly (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, pages can be moved without !voting, even if a discussion was opened (see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions). That said, you are most welcome to open up a requested move discussion yourself in support of moving the page back. Let me know if you have any questions, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

To Mentor, or to be mentored... that is the question...

Hi Arbitrarily0, I am curious at what point one should consider themselves qualified for being a mentor via the "Adopt..." program. My strong points are heavy work (compared to my edit count) in anti-vandalism, a decent understanding of how each rule and guideline applies, a willingness to assume good faith and an ability to copy-edit or help with other wording issues on proposed article inclusions (a lot of experience with that on the Star Trek Phase 2 project). My weaknesses are, I cannot write an article without lots of effort and time, have limited to zero article creation experience and sometimes tend to ramble. OTOH, I was going to put myself back up for adoption, but that was primarily to have someone to discuss perspectives on and ask advice. I'm realizing though, that I've already accumulated a decent sized list of experienced editors who are always willing to offer perspectives, review my actions or interpretations and so on - so I suspect a mentorship may not be what I need.

Anyway, I'd be interested in your opinion on what you think is a good balance or qualifications for adopting other users, as well as how far away from such criteria I may (or may not) be. Best, RobertMfromLI User Talk/Contribs 18:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think you could definitely start adopting new users. I think I was participating in the adoption program as an adopter after 3-4 months of editing –xenotalk 18:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
LoL, funny thing: it was a toss up between asking you or Arbitrarily (Fastily was on the list, but alas, he has retired). Thanks much for the feedback. :-) RobertMfromLI User Talk/Contribs 18:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Heh. To be honest, I've been thinking about taking my name off the list - but I'm waiting for another adopter with the name "X" to hang out a shingle. –xenotalk 19:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks xeno! :) Sorry for the delay Robert, hope things work out. Let me know how it goes, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Will do! Two offers out, will see what happens. :-) Thanks, both of you. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 03:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Great! Good luck! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Arbitrarily0, thanks for joining WP:WikiProject Screencast! Very glad to see you're interested. This project is a bit unusual -- we're trying to kick it off by producing about 7–10 screencasts over the weekend of Sept. 25, making a concerted effort to establish a project that will be lasting and productive. If you're really interested in producing screencasts, there should be plenty to do in the next week or so -- I hope you'll jump right in! Feel free to contribute anywhere on the WikiProject pages. -Pete (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome Pete, I'll see what I can do! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Adoption and more...

Hi again Arbitrarily, I've gotten two adoptees (just spent a while working with one of them, which went great, and he's got his first article (started from a stub) going for another GA review). Anyway, I wrote this which I hope you will review and provide feedback on. Best (and thanks again), ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 03:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Robert! Congratulations on your adoption successes! I read over your adoption page, and really however you wish to work it is up to you. My only concern would be that you don't want to try to scare editors away with too many rules. As long as you make it clear that adoptees should not be afraid to make mistakes (mistakes, if fact, should be encouraged, because this is where the most learning comes from), then you will be good to go. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Excellent suggestions! On to it soon as I get a work break. Thanks. -Rob / ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 17:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem! Stop by anytime, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I've (finally) finished the first draft for Urban contemporary gospel (1980s to present). Based on past experience, I expect someone to panic about the Wikipedia article that is actually about traditional black gospel music (1920s to 1960s) being called traditional black gospel. If you'd watchlist all the relevant pages, I'd appreciate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done - watchlisted. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI: AJona1992 (request for help)

Hi Arbitrarily0, We're hoping to close AJona1992's ANI (happened before I became his mentor, and part of the reason why I became it), but the terms proposed go above normal violation repercussions. I've been asked to be able to ensure there are admins willing to act upon the sanctions requested if such a need comes up (elevated warnings, defined block periods, and so on). The ANI is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:AJona1992. I will be asking 2 other admins as well, to satisfy the request/concerns of one of the other ANI participants. Thanks again, Robert / ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 03:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Robert. It looks like I missed the meat of the discussion, but I will say I certainly agree with Moonriddengirl. I'll keep an eye on the discussion, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree too (which I've made clear to him) and opted for Xeno's and Soundvision1's stricter sanctions - but I figured it best if I left the sanctions up to others to determine. :-) Thanks! Robert ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 20:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thiaoouba Prophecy

WHY DID YOU DELETE THE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiaoouba_Prophecy FILE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.200.167 (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thiaoouba Prophecy was deleted because of a consensus to do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thiaoouba Prophecy. Let me know of anything I can clarify or help you out with. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user reminder

Hello, I have completed a general cleanup of the adopter information page for the adopt-a-user project, located here. During my cleanup, I have removed several inactive and retired users. In order to provide interested adoptees with an easy location to find adopters, it is essential that the page be up-to-date with the latest information possible. Thus:

  • If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, please remove yourself from the list.
  • If you are still interested, please check the list to see if any information needs to be updated or added - especially your availability. Thank you.
  • You are receiving this message because you are listed as an adopter here.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 03:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

Thanks Netalarm, I have updated my listing. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey there, would you mind adopting User:Grekham? I was planning on adopting him myself, but I realized that it would be impossible for me to run adopter-adoptee matching while I had my own adoptee too. Please reply as soon as possible, thanks! Netalarmtalk 20:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Sure, that's perfectly fine. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I've notified the user. You may want to also message the user and introduce yourself :P. *Scurries away to match more pairs* Netalarmtalk 04:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 Done - thanks! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

Would like your thoughts, on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Cases_of_unanimous_consensus, as well as on User_talk:Ron_Ritzman#Query. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on both, thanks much for cluing me in! Appreciate it! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

West Branch (journal)

Hi, I was cleaning up a bit a newly created article, West Branch (literary journal) and moved it to West Branch (journal). When I went to the talk page to tag it for WPJournals, I was alerted that it had recently been deleted. I assumed it had been speedied, but from the log I see it was deleted after AfD. I have not yet tagged it for G4, because to me it looks like this new article might just squeak by our notability requirements. However, I don't really know how to handle this, as it was deleted after an AfD and re-created the same day. I hope that as an admin, you'll know more about this... Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, considering the sourcing in the article is vastly different from the deleted version, G4 won't apply. Unfortunately the references are all offline, making it more difficult to verify. Feel free to nominate it for deletion if you like - let me know if you have any questions! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it's borderline and as it looks rather decent, I'll let it go. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Crusio, this newer version is better so lets let it simmer for a while, and maybe we'll get something more worth keeping. Sadads (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree as well. Simply put, no prejudice against a speedy renomination if an editor sees fit. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Kim Leakhena to Kim Liakena

Hi. I notice you moved Kim Leakhena to Kim Liakena, with the comment "requested move; see Talk:Kim Liakena". However, the only requested move I can see on the Talk page was from Gim Liekena to Kim Leakhena, which I supported and which was done earlier by Vegaswikian. So why the second move? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed! I didn't realize that Vegaswikian had already moved the page because he/she forget to close the talk page request. For some reason when I linked to move the page, the name was changed to 'Liakena', which I didn't realize was not 'Leakhena'. 'Tis a lapse of an attention to detail on my part. Thanks for letting me know, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks - yes, I see it hadn't been closed. A good result is that we now have another useful redirect, from Kim Liakena :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed! Heehee yup! :) Cheers mate, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks a lot for adopting me!--Grekham (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem! Hope to see you around here a lot! :) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Girlscout uniform

That is not the name that was requested, please rename it again using the requested name.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done - what is 'guiding' by the way? I had assumed it was a typo. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Guiding is the original term for Girl Scouts, used by most countries outside the US sphere. When they found out girls wanted to be Boy Scouts, they wanted to give it a distinct name. Japan and a few other countries use Scout, the majority use Guide. See WAGGGS for the complete atrocious handle.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Is one more correct than the other? I also noticed that no pages currently transclude the template (see here), is there another template this one should be merged with? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Neither is more correct, but using both at once is a hassle, and the different naming serves to disambig while we are tooling this template.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. Well, sounds fine to me. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

help

I m new,actualy I have try many time to start a page but...very difficult.can you help tadaima2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadaima2 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure! What have you been working on? I'd be happy to help! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Mentoring request

Hello, Matt! My name's Megan and I'm a student at Indiana University in Professor Rubin's class. We'll be working on the new US Public Policy WikiProject this semester and have been asked to find online mentors to help us out as we fumble our way through the next couple of weeks. So when I inevitably come up with my thousands of questions, would you mind if I came to you for some help?  :) I'd be ever so gratefully yours, JaffaJunkie (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly! I'll be right here, stop by as frequently as you like. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Matt! Could you possibly add me to your list? The campus ambassador person just informed us that only 8 people in class had signed up for mentors and there was an outcry. I guess this is happening to a lot of people!  :) JaffaJunkie (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done - you can now see yourself at Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors/Mentors. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bubble Wrap (brand)

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rlevse! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Bubble wrap as wallpaper? Awesome hook :) Jujutacular talk 19:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey thanks Juju! It's great to hear from you! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

UM Wikipedians

I am not a student anymore, just a recent Alumnus. Am I still eligible to attend? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorsValiant09 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to attend! I suppose you wouldn't be able to officially 'join' the organization, but your participation/attendance would be hugely appreciated! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

And me? A student until 32 years ago. I'm not so much of a writer, but I do enjoy taking photos. I have AA and UofM photos on about 20 pages here. Is that a topic of interest? Parkerdr (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not! But consider contacting [email protected] to double check. :) Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the invite to the Wikipedia Club. Unfortunately, I'm no longer in Ann Arbor. I wish that I am still there. So, I can't be at your meeting in the Chemistry building, which by the way, is one of my favorite buildings. In any case, best of luck. (Can't wait for the game against Michigan State! Go Blue!) __earth (Talk) 13:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hiya! No problem at all! I actually won't be able to attend the meetup myself, although I might be able to come late. Cheers mate, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys -- yeah the meet up sounds like a great idea! Unfortunately, I am also an alumni that has moved on to other things far far away from Ann Arbor... I am relatively close by (5 hour drive) at the moment as I am doing some graduate work at Purdue. However, I have students that I have to teach on the day of the 'meet'. Maybe next time? Katanada (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but I as an alumna living out of state now I won't be attending. Please keep me in the loop with the group efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejl (talk • contribs) 12:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

An update from adopt a user

Hi there Arbitrarily0/Archive! You may be wondering, what have I done to sound the alarm this time? Nothing. I'm messaging you in regards to the adopt-a-user program, which currently has a backlog of users wishing to be adopted. This doesn't make much sense, as we have a considerable list of users offer adoption, so there shouldn't be any backlog. I've begun to eliminate this backlog myself through a matching program, but I need your help to make it work. Of course, adoptees and adopters don't have to go through there, but I believe it helps eliminate the backlog because someone is actively matching pairs.

On the list of adopters, I have modified the middle column to say "Interests." It's easier working with other users that have similar interests, so if it's not too much to ask, could you add your interests in the middle column? For example, if I was interested in hurricanes, computers, business, and ... reptiles? I would place those in the middle column. Counter-vandalism and the like can also be included (maintenance should be used as the general term). The more interests, the better, since adoptees can learn more about you and choose the one they feel most comfortable working with. The information about when you're most active and other stuff can go into the "Notes" section to the right.

Finally, I've gone around and asked adoptees (and will in the future) to fill in a short survey so adopters can take the initiative and contact users they feel comfortable working with. We all know that most adoptees just place the adopt me template on their user page and leave it - so it's up to us to approach them and offer adoption. So, please take a look at the survey, adopt those that fit your interests, and maybe watchlist it so you can see the interests of adoptees and adopt one that fits your interests in the future.

Once again, thank you for participating in the adopt-a-user program! If you wish to respond to this post, please message me on my talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 05:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for taking the initiative to ramp up the adoption program, well done! I should get a chance to seek out some new adoptees within the week. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hadith studies

You recently moved the page Hadith studies claiming consensus on its Talk:Hadith studies. Seeing that I clearly disagreed on that talk page how can there have been consensus? Secondly, shouldn't the rational for the move be examined in the case that there is no consensus? As I presented numerous sources clearly illustrating precedence for the use of the name Science of hadith, and considering Wikipedia's policy of verifiability, shouldn't this have been given more consideration than the personal opinion of three user's who produced no references to support their claim that it is improper to use the word science in more than just a limited capacity? Supertouch (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can exist even when not all of the participants are in agreement (i.e., consensus is rarely unanimous). I read the entire discussion and did my best to weigh all arguments duly. Since all !voters (including yourself) made valid points, a three-to-one majority seemed to justify a rough consensus. That said, you are still welcome to open a second move discussion in order to reverse the original. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Supertouch (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
No problem at all! Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Confused

I've recently adopted User:11614soup adoption yet he's also listed on your current adoptees list, have you done any adoption work with him that I am unaware of since I'm a bit confused. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:47pm • 06:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No idea. I see he listed himself here, but I've never communicated with him before. Curious. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh ok, thanks for clarifying :) I made a request in the first section (again) in case you missed it. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 2:38pm • 03:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome! Indeed I didn't notice! Replied above. :) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Replied above :) Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:43pm • 08:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
See above again :) —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:52am • 20:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Please provide your input

Hi I started an RfC at WT:UBX and would like to get your input with regards to the issue outlined in the debate. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 1:37pm • 02:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hi my name is Montserrat Salin i study in Mexico city, i was hopping you could adopt me for my english business course and help me work on my final project. Thanks MontseSalin (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Most certainly! Let me know what you need help with! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Adopt Me

Hello My name is Oscar Brum and i am working on a school project on the Tec de Monterrey in Mexico City. I hope you can help me. Greetings --Oscarbrum (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! Stop by whenever you need anything! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

User Vandalism

Hi, I have a complaint against User:Vicky Ng who is repeating actions of vandalism and removal of properly-cited and referenced information, that seemingly contradicts her beliefs, from this article here. I hope you can do something to stop her vandalism. Thanks. Atubeileh (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I see. Looks like there has since been discussion since on this on Vicky Ng's talk page. In the future, consider maybe using user warning templates in order to notify the editor. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning

Would you mind if I un-relist this? (ie undo your relisting.) The author seemed to want to bundle this with another request that had a more robust discussion, the result of which seemed overwhelmingly in favor of moving. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that User:Orlady has taken care of this. Thanks for letting me know, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi, my name is Damon and I would like to be part of Wikipedia and I was wondering if you could help me. Thanks. Damon (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Undoubtedly! Let me know what I can do for you! Hope to see you around, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for David Barger

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rlevse! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Help creating my first real article

Hello,

I have been wanting to create an article on wikipedia for a few months now. I am nervous that it wont "stick". I would love some guidance and help to make my article survive on wikipedia and avoid speedy deletion. I am excited to begin this article and continue to add more articles and edits! Please help. Thank you.

-Alice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alicemaguire (talk • contribs) 22:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Answered at Alice's talk page since it was asked in two places. Amalthea 22:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Amalthea! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Aegis Limited

Hi, need your guidance. i created one article Aegis Limited, keeping third party, reliable independant sources. But it was deleted stating that it was copyrighted. Article contained some STATEMENTS like "The company specializes in tailor-made solutions that cover the entire spectrum of customer and business experiences" released by Aegis Limited to the PRESS which were actually facts about company, So how can they be called as copyrighted material, even if these statements are intended for public information or press release. I accept that some lines were copied from websites & as per wiki guidelines its wrong, but this was not intentional, instead for the clarification of that i also presented the references from where that STATEMENTS were taken. Now need to know where i make up the mistakes & what/where i need to focus & take care while facing such issues in creating up articles.(  Abu Torsam  14:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC))

My suggestion would be to only use text that you wrote yourself. This is the only sure-fire way to go about avoiding copyright issues. Your thoughts? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

How's your Online Ambassador experience going so far?

Hi Arbitrarily0/Archive/2010,

We're starting to get into the busy part of the semester for Online Ambassadors, and we want to check in and see how you're doing, what your opinions about where we are now, and any feedback you may have.

Please answer these questions either on my talk page or send them to me by email.

1. How many mentees are you currently working with?

2. Have you reached out to students who don't have mentors yet? If not, would you be willing to?

3. What do you think of the content of messages on the Google Group?

4. What do you think of the volume of messages on the Google Group?

5. Do you participate on the Google Group much? If not, what would make you participate more?

6. Are there any problems you've experienced so far?

7. Is there anything else Sage or the rest of the Public Policy Initiative team could do to make your experience as an Online Ambassador better?

8. Are you okay sharing your username with your answers to our Public Policy Initiative team, or would you prefer to remain anonymous?

Thanks for your feedback! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hiya Ldavis! I have to run out of town tonight, but I'll get back to you with the survey as soon as I get home tomorrow. Sorry for the delay! Talk to you soon, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Alright! I have emailed you my responses. Thanks Ldavis! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion consistency

You seem to be leading the efforts regarding an article about a small company: Tape Wrangler. I have not posted an opinion on this issue. In July, however, you deleted another much larger Michigan compay, Highlight Industries. Highlight is many times larger, is well known as a quality supplier in North America, and takes part in national trade shows, etc. Highlight, by any standard, is more notable. How is it that you delete a major company yet retain a small one? Rlsheehan (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hiya Rlsheehan! Notability for every topic is assessed independently. If the notability of a subject is borderline, then users discuss it through the articles for deletion process in hopes of coming to a consensus. There was a rough consensus to delete Highlight Industries at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highlight Industries because the topic lacked ample sourcing. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tape Wrangler, Cirt (talk · contribs) did not see such a consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
This logic is upside down: a much larger and well respected company is considered not notable while a small start up is notable. I would almost think that any Michigan company that is surviving should be notable these days. There needs to be a uniform basis of judgement. Do you recommend that Highlight should be reconsidered? Rlsheehan (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, the notability for every topic is assessed entirely independently. If consensus deems Highlight Industries notable, then it is so. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have time...

I would greatly appreciate if you would review this and tell me if I am totally off my rocker. Currently, the consensus stands at 5 to 2 for moving Iron Maiden into a higher category, for which to try to alleviate things, I've provided better sources (such as The Telegraph, which is the same source used for a very large Mariah Carey claim).

Issues at hand:

  • Though claiming his intent is otherwise, Harout72 keeps making statements implying ownership of the article
  • Additional cites, stats and information are being dismissed out of hand with no review
  • He admits to (with some other editors) making the "rules" which we all must abide by, even though one of those "rules" is "Exceptions may be made in certain circumstances." which I would presume consensus would allow for violating his "rule"
  • He claims moving Iron Maiden up would violate consensus - then claims there is no consensus - then claims he never brought up consensus as the issue. Then claims his consensus is to leave them where it is (how can his opinion be the consensus? Unless it has to do with the fact that he made the "rules"?)


There's a lot more, but I will let you read through it (assuming you wish to review it) and come to your own conclusions. Should I drop it? Does the consensus plus the additional cites trump his not intended but acted upon ownership of the article and his self imposed rules? Should I take it/him to AN/I? Should I take it to RfC (leary about this one, as he's already, whether intentionally or not, implied his willingness to canvas for support)?


At a loss...

Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 21:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we've actually come to an agreement... Thanks, R ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 02:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Splendid Robert! Good to have you stop by anyway! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Next time it will be something simple, I promise!!! :-) Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 05:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Heehee! :) No worries! Take care mate, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Help With Bernardo Quintana Arrioja Article

Hello! i am writting an article about Bernardo Quintana Arrioja, a mexican engineer that made many contributions to Mexico.I would truly appreciate if you could help me with this by telling me what to correct so it wont get erased!! (although it is still under construction) thank you

Natquintana (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Natquintana, there are a few different things you can do.

  • First, next time considering starting the article in your userspace sandbox and then moving it to article space. Kinda too late this time (though if it gets deleted, you can ask an admin like Arbitrarily to userfy it for you).
  • Second, if you are actively working on the article, you wish to place the {{underconstruction}} tag on it. Simply hit the top edit button, and place that tag exactly as I typed it in this message, then save the page. Remember to take it off when you are done or taking a long break from editing.
  • Also, there are other tags you can use to request help from other editors, and plenty of resources on Wikipedia to help ensure your article is up to standards. Here's a list of places on Wikipedia to check out:


Hope that helps! Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 03:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch Robert! Natquintana, let us know if there's anything else we can clarify or help you with. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk: Anthropogenic hazard

Hello, I started a move discussion on here Talk:Anthropogenic hazard#Proposal to rename this article to the common name "Man-made disasters]] (or hazard(s)) and would like guidance on how long I should wait before I make the move myself or request a move from a disinterested party. The page existed for five years with an appropriate name but last month was renamed to this little known scientific name out of political correctness.

A summary of all the page moves for this article since creation.

The page was created in March 2005 as "man-made disasters". Move history follows:

  • 28 March 2005 Jnc (talk | contribs) (42 bytes)[created as "Man-made disasters]
  • 25 March 2007 Rxnd (talk | contribs) m (497 bytes) (moved Man-made disasters to Human-made disaster: Adopting the gender neutral term and fixing plural.)
  • 22 April 2007 Kevin B12 (talk | contribs) m (10,275 bytes) (moved Human-made disaster to Man-made disasters over redirect: Undoing political correctness.)
  • 22 May 2007 Rxnd (talk | contribs) m (10,273 bytes) (moved Man-made disasters to Man-made hazards: To standardize the use of terminology)
  • 2 September 2008 Black Falcon (talk | contribs) m (9,786 bytes) (moved Man-made hazards to Man-made hazard: per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals))
  • 3 September 2010 Twinsday (talk | contribs) m (11,564 bytes) (moved Man-made hazard to Anthropogenic hazard: gender-neutral and scientific term)

I looked in several Wiki policies for guidance and could not find any on suggested wait periods. Should I take this to the apparently inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management? There is no rush and I would like to avoid dramas and confusion with yet another name change but this seems pretty obvious to me. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and added {{requested move}} to the top of the section. This will invite discussion from Wikipedia:Requested moves and will be closed at some time after seven days (from when you originally posted). Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I didn't want to stumble into a PC war. I'll follow it so I understand the process. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Anytime! Thanks for stopping by! :) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

write back soon

can you adopt me please.. jkjk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbirdie101 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to adopt you! What can I do to help you out? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick request

Hi Arbitrarily, do you know how I can get rid of the big gap between the image and the body of my userpage? I tried merging it but the markup went a bit screwy in the preview, the width was right but the layout of the boxes was wrong. Cheers, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 12:04pm • 01:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well I see the gap you're referring to, but with all of the subpage transcriptions I'm not even sure where to begin. Do you know what subpage is causing this error? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Not particularly :S I asked Jamesofur if he knew what was causing this problem but since he's busy with Foundation work I didn't bother chasing him up on this. The "/Intro" and the "/" pages are the pages which contain the markup. Sorry about my belated response. Regards, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:26pm • 10:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

students to mentor

Per recent discussions on the Ambassadors list, we're going to try out assigning mentors to some of the students that don't have one, beginning with Media, Politics & Power in the Digital Age. Would you be willing to mentor User:AyamGoreng and User:Jnortey08?

If so, please introduce yourself to each of them, perhaps along these lines:

"Hi! I'm Arbitrarily0, and I've been assigned as your mentor. (If you'd rather choose your own mentor or don't want one, just let me know; you can request a different mentor from this list of Online Ambassadors.)

I'll keep an eye on your edits as you work on Wikipedia for your class, and try to pitch in where I can. If you'd like any help or advice, please let me know."

After that, don't forget to update Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors/Mentors to list your mentees, and if you've reached your limit, move your entry down to the "additional ambassadors" section.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done - thanks Sage! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you up for a few more? The Political Economy of Technology and Science is looking for mentors on a per-article basis (with usually two students per article, but one mentor). If you've not reached your limit, please sign up as the mentor for Nationalization of oil supplies and Biomass briquettes on the course page, and leave notes introducing yourself for the four students (and list them on the mentors page).--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 Done and  Done! Thanks again Sage! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for joining up with us! They should be writing in sand boxes soon (within the week) so get ready!Sadads (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Hi ArbitrarilyO, A couple of weeks ago you were kind enough to correct my requested move (User:Mystic Street/sandbox → Institut Pasteur Korea). I am now writing for advice on what happens next. The requested move is now part of the RM backlog. Do administrators eventually get around to making a call on these, and will they inform me of the decision? Is there any way that I can request a decision? Thanks for your help Mystic Street (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response, Mystic. I've been overwhelmed with off-wiki work these past few days. I've gone ahead and moved your draft to Institut Pasteur Korea. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar


 The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
You are one of the nicest Wikipedians I know of, not simply cordial, polite or professional, but you genuinely come off as friendly on a level that's not necessary or common here. I think that whenever I see you around, and simply scanning your talk page reiterates that opinion. I award you this barnstar simply for being nice. Best regards, Swarm X 10:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow! Thank you for your kind words! They mean much to me - take excellent care mate, happy editing! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Online Ambassador selection process

Please share you views on the current version of the proposed Online Ambassador selection process, which the steering committee has recommended for adoption by the ambassadors program. Once we settle on a selection process, we can start recruiting more Online Ambassadors for next term (in which we will have more students, and the students will be more involved with mentors from early on).--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello!

I saw you in IRC and just felt like saying hi. You might remember me from June and July as a slightly annoying user who tried to become an admin way to early lol. You were mentoring me at the time. I realize now that I never actually thanked you for helping me out and giving me some clue as to how Wikipedia works and how to work it. So thank you for giving me some of your time. Mr. R00t Talk 19:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"Annoying"? Of course not - I'm here to help out no matter what :) Thank you so much for your kind words R00t - take great care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I seem to remember asking the same questions many times over. If not annoying then perhaps just a little bit dense. This is a rather silly disagreement wouldn't you say? Cheers, Mr R00t Talk 'tribs 22:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

IRC

Hey there Arbit. I hope everything is going well. I was wondering if you could grant me access to the admin IRC channel, or know someone who can? Thanks! Jujutacular talk 05:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Got it taken care of by an operator, thanks anyway though! Jujutacular talk 12:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
So sorry for the delayed reply Juju, a bunch of things came up all of a sudden. Glad you found someone to do it, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

Hey Arbitrarily! I’ve come back from a break, and I will be editing nonstop for quite a while now. So be prepared for any questions that may be soon fired your way! Cheers, The Arbiter★★★ 23:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent!! I should be around to help out :) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Girlguiding Cymru2.svg

Thank you for the renames! Can you do a quick fix of this one per uploader?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done! :) Cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Category move

Hello, can you please change Category:Socialist Anarchism to Category:Social Anarchism. The latter is the more common name. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jerry. Sorry for the delayed reply. Categories are normally renamed through a discussion process at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Would you like help opening up such a discussion? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Help mentees

Recently your mentees working on Biomass briquettes and Nationalization of Oil Supplies have seriously expanded their articles, please give feedback and answer any questions they may have. Thanks! Sadads (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sadads, have contacted both. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Planning for next term in the Wikipedia Ambassador Program

Hi Matt. We're trying to figure out how many students we can mentor next term and how many additional Online Ambassadors will be needed. Based on the revised plan for what participating courses will be like next term, I've sketched out what will be expected of mentors. Please look that over, and then go to the online ambassadors talk page to indicate much mentoring and other ambassador activities you'd like to do next term. Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Mentor for team of students

Hi, my name is James Fullerton, and I'm a teacher at Southern Lehigh Middle School in PA. Recently I've created a project that involves Wikipedia (WP) and small groups of students making a contribution to a WP article of their choosing, as long as the topic is related to the content of the course - being American Government, Civics, and Economics. For the past 4 weeks, students have become involved in the culture of WP, with many already narrowing in on a topic for their contribution. Here is the supportive material on Wikispaces (https://wikiedit.wikispaces.com/). Your assistance would be greatly appreciated! Would you be available to act as a mentor to a small group of students as they begin to offer additional content to an article of their interest? The team sizes are numbered between 5-7 students each. I will notify you as to who is in the teams with their WP user names. Jmfullerton (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, Arbitrarily0/Archive!
At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! The ArbiterTalk 02:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Arbiter, happy holidays to yourself as well! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Mentoring Request

Hi Matt,

My name is Patrick and I was hoping you'd be my mentor for a wikipedia project I have in one of my classes at UC Berkeley. My group and I are working on improving the Crowdsourcing article. Any suggestions on the best way to tackle this project would be very much appreciated.

Thanks,

Patrick (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Patrick! Crowdsourcing, eh? Since the article is sizable, maybe one thing it could use some re-organization. Do you know of anything about crowdsourcing that it not already in the article? If you can source it, add it! Since I am not overly familiar with crowdsourcing itself, it's hard for me to give general advice on it, but please let me know of any specific questions! Hope to hear from you soon! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

HEY!!!

A trout

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Arbitrarily, where are you? Anyways, when you wake up after being knocked out by the trout, could you take a look at my first expanded article here? Thanks! The ArbiterTalk 17:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Wayne! Nice to see you again in these parts. Indeed (and sadly) I have become very busy with things outside of Wikipedia, and miss it dearly. I took a scan through of your article, and it looks very nice. C-class fits it as is, but I think just a bit more expansion and some more sourcing could easily bring it to B-class. Take great care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Jason Upton

Hi Arbitrarily, I asked for a deletion review for Jason Upton. See: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 30. Happy new year.Cgadbois (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Cgadbois. I see that the issue has been taken care of. Happy holidays, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arbitrarily0/Archive/2010&oldid=1194811979"