User talk:Backslash Forwardslash/Archive 8

Reply

@Skater:--SKATER ^Speak. 01:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC) @Skater:--SKATER ^Speak. 01:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Promotional Material???????

Please do explain what article this is on I am very confused!!! You sent me a message!!! Explain! Thanks :) --Jakingsbeer (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I warned you about linking to your website on your userpage. While we do have some leeway for regular editors, I felt it was a little to much like an advertisement. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Bonecrusher (Transformers)

I think we settled it, I changed my wording to mention both points of view. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think uKER fully agrees with you. If he wants it lifted too then I'll be happy to, but not just yet. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There are actually TWO disputes. One about a dog, and one obscure cameo. The one about the cameo is settleled, I believe, and it was between 4 editors, who each seemed to have their own take. I'll see if I can get an agreement among us on the one about the dog, or at least get more outside opinions. Mathewignash (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

List of....

Why would you delete the article List of drum majors, commanders and directors of the Highty-Tighties without putting the contents in the main article on the Highty-Tighties? The contents were referenced from the 120+ college yearbooks that I and others read through to get this information. There may not be a notable person in the list but the notable facts are the trends in number of members of the band and who the drum majors and captains where. This information doesn't exist anywhere else in the world in one place. It adds to the historical significance of the main article. Talk to GM 02:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The consensus was to delete, not merge. I'm happy to provide a copy of the article for you to incorporate into the main article, if you'd like. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: 2010 Formula One season.

As per Talk:2010 Formula One season#Campos/Manor again, a dispute over multiple conflicting sources from the same date has been able to be corrected following the finding of a newer source, and there now appears to be consensus to use this source. Therefore I'd like to ask that the article be unprotected so that these corrections can be made and the article can be further edited once more. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 05:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the efforts in reaching a consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

New Jersey Route 64

I notice that the AfD has been closed but there is no old AfD notice on the article talk page. Would you do the honours? Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Barack Obama Joker poster

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Barack Obama Joker poster. 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. Jpatokal (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove the pointer to the deletion review from the AFD page — how do you expect people to find it without one? Jpatokal (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[1]

Thank you for your concern about our privacy. I am not sure I understand why other people can be found on wikipedia and I am not allowed to put this individual on wikipedia. I do think this person is notable enough in the medical world to warrant a wikipedia article, so would you you mind telling me why not other than privacy? She is a minor, but her parents have consented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metcalfmd (talk • contribs)

Hey Metcalfmd. I regularly patrol userpages looking for personal, identifying information of minors and attempt to inform them about 'advertising' themselves online. I didn't spend a great length of time looking over your particular page, but in looking over the page now it appears that you were trying to use the minor as a 'poster girl' for either the website or a medical miracle. (If I have misjudged your intentions, apologies.)

Userpages, on Wikipedia, are not the same as articles. Userpages are generally only used by editors to provide a little information about themselves; to identify themselves from another editor. Articles on the other hand are considered part of the encyclopedia, and are included based on a set of notability criteria. Judging by your comment, I believe that is what you thought you were creating for this woman? If so, I'd recommend you list it at Articles for creation. There editors will review your submission and determine whether or not the article passes our criteria, or what to do in order for the article to pass. If you have any concerns about that process or are unsure of what I have explained, please let me know. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama Joker poster

Can you explain how the keep votes are "significantly weaker"? Thank you. APK say that you love me 02:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The following is a list of all the votes that contribution little or nothing to the discussion.

Keep. This article is now in a good condition.

Keep - High EV.

Keep Notabilty? ok! NPOV? ok! thus keep!

Keep, Political satire has always been permitted. Both parties and all Presidents are subjected to it. I do not see this as racial in any way shape or form. While I'd like to see it all stopped, that will never happen. So I guess it's fair game.

The rest of the keep votes simply stated that notability was passed, I think only one or two actually had anything substantial to say. Compared the the deletes (who did too have useless votes) the keeps stood significantly weaker. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The delete votes included the following rationale.

Trivial mentions. (There were news articles specifically about the poster, so what's the definition of "trivial"?)

per WP:OR and WP:N (How is it original research?)

lack of notability (Above, you said "keep votes simply stated that notability was passed". Does the rule same apply when people simply state notability is lacking?)

per WP:N (Same as above.)

per moral equivalent of WP:ONEEVENT (The reasoning is intended for biographical articles.)

suspected article, also WP:NEO (What does "suspected" mean? How does Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms apply to the article?)

More anti-Obama POV pushing. (No reasoning and our site is not censored.)

WP:NOTNEWS (It was the account's first and only edit.)

Notability doesn't mean "mentioned on the interwebs" (Comparing apples to oranges. The Obama poster has received mainstream news coverage.)

Not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. (See above.)

WP:NOTNEWS (The poster has been the subject of news coverage for more than one reason. See below.)

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM (See below. The second link is an essay.)

Not nowhere near important to be on Wikipedia. (No reasoning.)

In regards to those who used WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N as reasons to delete (as I previously mentioned) the poster is not an event and multiple reliable sources have reported on the poster's initial discovery, the person who created the poster, flickr removing the image from its site, and the image's usage by anti-Obama demonstrators.

Five of the thirteen votes can be discounted (no reasoning, they don't like the article, single-purpose vote, etc.) There are at least a dozen keep votes with valid rationale as opposed to the remaining eight delete votes citing WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS. APK say that you love me 03:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not a subject passes notability, or is a news item is dictated by consensus. Simply by having one person offer their view on WP:NOTNEWS does not nullify those using it as a rationale. Simply stating an article passes/fails WP:N is also weak, as you'd agree, in that respect I found the arguments made by the keep voters less substantial and less convincing.

Interestingly enough, there were a contingent of editors who suggested the article be merged. The Joker poster does get a mention in Public image of Barack Obama, so I'm not sure if you can say the closure was against their wishes as well. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I skipped the merge votes since you had only compared the deletes vs. keeps. May I ask, in your view, how did the article fail WP:N criteria? Gracias. APK say that you love me 04:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would've said that merging is correct simply because it does deserve some mention, just not a whole article. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind providing a copy of the deleted article? APK say that you love me 05:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

User:AgnosticPreachersKid/Barack Obama Joker poster. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:N states that "substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion", and that a consensus to the contrary is required to overturn this presumption. There is substantive coverage (articles devoted entirely to the poster) in countless reliable sources (LA Times, Chicago Tribune, MSNBC, CNN, etc) referenced in the article, and there most certainly was not a consensus that the article fails any of the WP:NOT criteria. The strongest argument against the article is WP:NOTNEWS, but opinion on that matter was far from unanimous: as was repeatedly pointed out, the article was not about the one-off event of some posters appearing in LA, but about the poster being a turning point in public attitude and adopted as a symbol of notable protest movement.

Also, I find it bizarre that you are discounting the Keep comments because they're all about WP:N — the proposer's rationale for deletion was that the poster is not notable, so of course people are responding to that! As pointed out above, the other reasons given for deletion (WP:OR, WP:NEO, WP:ONEEVENT) are spurious.

So please reconsider, or I will be requesting a formal review. Jpatokal (talk) 05:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Votes that failed to substantiate on why the topic was or was not notable were weak and were not as influential as a vote that illustrated clearly why the subject was or was not notable. Consensus is not influenced by the sheer number of votes, and I found that the those wanting deletion did a better job of illustrating why the article was not notable. Even still, the argument surrounding WP:ONEEVENT was not countered effectively, and can hardly be dismissed as spurious.

If you want to take it to DRV be my guest, but my recommendation is that you focus on improving the section at Public image of Barack Obama. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:ONEEVENT? It's about people notable only for one event, and while an excellent argument against giving Firas Alkhateeb his own article, is irrelevant to an artwork. You might also like to review the essay Wikipedia:WI1E, where an event is defined as "a single specific act that has taken place with a defined beginning and end", again inapplicable to an artwork. Jpatokal (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion. Others in that discussion disagreed. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I found possible sources and added them here. APK say that you love me 09:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but you are still making the same strawman arguments now that others were in the AfD. It isn't about sourcing, just as "Michelle's arms", "Obama's fly-swatter", "Obama's teleprompter", and probably a few others I'm forgetting weren't about sourcing. Sourcing is a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Tarc (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the examples you gave (which I assume are now deleted articles), but I'm not suggesting the amount of sources is the only reason the subject is notable. It's notable because of the initial international news coverage, the free speech controversy that led to Flickr changing its takedown policy, and the image becoming a standard protest sign. Also, the first four paragraphs in this Los Angles Times article clearly states why the artist is notable. APK say that you love me 13:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on APK's rather thorough comment here, I courteously invite you to reconsider your deletion. I think the talk page proved at minimum that there was no consensus in deletion. Many of the things to which the joker poster was compared (e.g. Michele Obama's arms) genuinely weren't worthy of a page; however, this item is proving to be a meme with staying power. Since people come to the wiki for information and the image continues to be used in news accounts (see APK's post directly above), it seems natural that people would look here for background information on the controversial but oft-used image. A man in Pittsburgh was just arrested Wednesday for using the image, for example. Smontg2 (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sock block

That user you just blocked for the personal attack appears to be a sock of Orange soda kid. Triplestop x3 00:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess we'll find out when the autoblock kicks in. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange, the user posted an unblock-auto for an IP that isn't blocked. Triplestop x3 00:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

How does a blocked user respond at ANI or confirm that his or her password has been changed? (I have nothing to do with orange and friends - just wanted to innocently !vote on an MfD, and got sucked into the rabbit hole.)--SPhilbrickT 18:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any way to confirm it since he didn't commit his identity, but judging by the recent events I don't think there is much point worrying about it. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello there my block is finally over. I guess that ill leave you alone now.--Coldplay Expert 02:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The Sundance Kids

You beat me by a day! Haha. I've had it sitting in my subpages for about a week now, finally got around to finishing it and you've already created the page. I think I'll implement my page, then I'll incorporate your stuff back into it hopefully tomorrow. Cheers. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 14:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. ;) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha, you really have done a good job with it - I don't think you need to worry about incorporated my crap into it, everything is covered there. Sorry about missing it, I didn't think to check other users subpages. Are you going to nominate it for WP:DYK? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. It could do with a couple more sources. I've never done a DYK before, any suggestions of what would be a good sentence to nominate? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 14:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

How about "... that Adelaide band The Sundance Kids was formed in a shopping centre over takeaway pizza"? It's not that great, but when you nominate for DYK a reviewer will often come along and find another one anyway. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I liked it! I'll give it a go. Thanks mate. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 14:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

RFA

The first link doesn't work, but I wasn't completely sure about the whole second page addition page there. I didn't mean that to be a race, and I'm sorry if it appeared that way. Thanks for the heads up on the links there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't know how to do it, why would you attempt to? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done it many times before and I was never told of my mistakes regarding the links, thus I can't be completely blamed for doing something that I didn't know I was doing erroneously. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact you were doing it wrong. RfA's are meant to be closed by crats. Non-crat closures are the exception and have to be 100% perfect. You should watch how crats close the RfAs before you go in swinging. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Userpage design

Do you mind if I steal your userpage layout, I would tweak the colors a bit (not a big brown person myself)? --Admrboltz (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Just make a note about where you got it from if you don't mind. (Doesn't have to be big, just readable.) :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Frederick Birks

FYI: You may wish to participate in a discussion at Talk:Frederick Birks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well considering you referred to me by name, I guess I'll have to. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

;-) (It was intended as an invitation, but yes, I guess you're right, you didn't really have many options ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding these edits: I think they make quite an improvement. Good stuff. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for opinion

Which do you think looks better? Centred, or Left justified? Pdfpdf (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Another question

Do you know if there is a "standard" layout for citation notes? (The Birks article uses "Retrieved on", "Retrieved" and "retrieved".) Pdfpdf (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI?

I just came across Georges Vanier. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Left Justified looks better IMO, and according to WP:CITE "Retrieved on" is preferred. As for the Vanier article, the ribbons there are used in a different context, and in the middle of a significant amount of lists and tables. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rihards Gorkšs

Hello! You were the closing admin there. Kept articles still include afd templates, is it for a reason or you've just forgot to remove them? Thanks! G.n.v.N. (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I had been distracted by the separation of the articles which required deletion and those that didn't. Feel free to remove them yourself, as my internet is self destructing as I type. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well now that I have said that, it seems to have held together. Tags removed and added to talk pages. Apologies again. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My image

When you were fixing the link, you had forgotten to lowercase the "jpg" in the link on my page. I got it taken care of on my page now though :) Whammies Were Here 10:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Thanks for your concern. However, the page is not about me. I am a fan writing this page. Magykmusic (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Image File:06-02-08.jpg

I took this photo myself from a 7th floor balcony in Av 25 de Mayo y Mitre in Coronel Pringles, Prov. de Buenos Aires, Argentina David(Talk • Contribs) 22:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OTRS invitation

The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our permissions and photosubmissions queues. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider seeking approval at the volunteering page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 18:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I am just beginning to get back into article writing, and I wouldn't want anything distracting me. ;) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ribbons

FYI?

I just came across Georges Vanier. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Left Justified looks better IMO, and according to WP:CITE "Retrieved on" is preferred.

Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the Vanier article, the ribbons there are used in a different context, and in the middle of a significant amount of lists and tables. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh? That sounds like an answer to a question. As I didn't ask any question(s) about the Vanier article, I'm not sure what question you are answering. (i.e. What question are you answering?)

What I did do was bring it to your attention.

Perhaps I should make some comment. OK. Here goes:

I just came across Georges Vanier. This shows another and quite different way to approach the topic! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had perhaps answered the question of 'This is how they use the medal ribbon bar, perhaps the Fred Birks article should have similar'? Apologies. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't communication wonderful? It provides almost infinite scope for ambiguity and misinterpretation! ;-) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

RE:Hidden Pages

Hi, Im keen on keeping these because I think that the next in line will be the signature pages. But I have given up, Ill post a comment on all of the pages with the exeption of MC. I realized that you all win and I dont hold a grudge so ill just forget about it. (with the exeption of MC s/he deserves to keep his/her due to the edits s/he has.--Coldplay Expert 01:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not about winning and losing. You do realise we are trying to build an encyclopedia here, not making friends? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Its not about wining or losing or making friends. I know that im here to contribute to this site and I do (despite what Roux has said.) I just my opinon that they should be keeped. (I rally dont want the sig. pages to go, even Jimbo has one.) And like I just said it is my opinion and mine only. No one else has to like it or dislike it. And in case anyone thinks that im not being civil ect. Im sorry I didnt mean to come off so hard.--Coldplay Expert 01:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about the signature pages, nobody will touch those. Some time ago, Jimbo released a statement (now practically sacred to some users), saying they encourage a community atmosphere, and everybody seems to agree with him. Or at least nobody argues with it. Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 13:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned with signature books myself either. A signature book is one of those socialising things that encourage community atmosphere. What I am against is games which distract, not encourage the community. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually slightly irritated by people handing out barnstar for finding their pages. No offense to anyone who does this, but I think they are reducing the value of Barnstars, and has encouraged new users to hand out Barnstars for the slightest achievement. But I'm just rambling on, nobody has to agree with me, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 13:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright then I support you Backslash Forward Slash. I understand now, As long as the sig. pages are keeped, youve got my vote. (Oh and does that mean that sig. pages barnstars are a waste two?)--Coldplay Expert 23:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No, no, it doesn't mean they're a waste. It means that since they're not quite as valuable as regualar Barnstars (you can't really deny that), and some people get the impression from this that you should just hand out BSs for everything, like saying hi or something, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 09:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick Question

Hey can something be done about User:Thatsofatchiken his only two edits so far is vandalism and Im pretty sure that he is a WP:VOA--Coldplay Expert 00:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Just give him a warning everytime he does it, and if he vandalises after his final warning report him to WP:AIV. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright Thanks--Coldplay Expert 00:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rfa

Thanks for the suggestion. Do you have any recommendations on people I should check with or should I go to the possible admin adopt page.

Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 23:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I would think just adding yourself to the page would be better, that way someone who is willing to help will come to you. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST admins

Hi. Since you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, feel free to list yourself here. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You love Military History too?--Coldplay Expert 20:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Rfa

I closed my Rfa about an hour ago and left a strongly worded closing statement. I wanted to make sure that you know that I did not mean it in reference to you. Your remarks were kind and supportive and I am very appreciative. I, for the most part, left the message that I did because I felt that I offered a legitimate suggestion to be taken into consideration for future Rfa's that was dismissed because I was power-hungry, an accusation that I am deeply resent. In any case, I hope to see you around the encyclopedia.

Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 19:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Pearl Corkhill

On September 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pearl Corkhill, 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) 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.

PeterSymonds (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 12:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Guitarherochristopher

Hello Backslash Forwardslash. I have just recived this message from what appears to be GHC's father so I have decided that it would be best to forward it to you.

The message reads as follows:

Dear coldplay export.I have no clue about wikipedia,etc.I am guitarherochristopher's father.I have tried to contact wikipedia,but cant figure it out.I use to be a recording artist but now I am in the medical field.My son is a 13 year old autistic boy who is a gifted in many areas mainly he has a photographic memory and spends his time making thousands of animations and videos of coldplay.some are over 1 hour long.the reason I am writing I try to monitor chris' computer time in our living room and I see he is being blocked and complained about a lot.I am concerned and dont know exactly what to do.I want him to continue doing work that is accurate,but I dont want him to do things that are not true.I tell him over and over not to edit ANYTHING!!!!.,He try's to comply,but he cant resist sharing his ideas.I am sorry for any problems he is causing.I am hoping you can write me back and let me know if you have any ideas to help him.Also can you pass this on to an administrator,so they can help me.My email is <snip>.thank you for your time.sincerely chris sr.. iGUItARH3R0KHR!ZT0PH3R!_-=₪ 22:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have also resonded at GHC talk page.--Coldplay Expert 23:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be extremely surprised if that came from anyone older than the age of eleven. I've never met a fully grown man so incapable of communication. (Unless, of course, English is the second language, but I don't think that is the case.) I would advise you to tell Christopher that playing games don't end well and that if he wants help editing, he should ask someone himself in a mature manner. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh...why dont you tell him, I dont feel good about this...--Coldplay Expert 00:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh. → ROUX ₪ 03:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Dito...--Coldplay Expert 00:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:FederickBirks.jpg

File:FederickBirks.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Frederick Birks VC AWM P02939.023.jpeg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Frederick Birks VC AWM P02939.023.jpeg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

File:6battalion03-07-17.jpg is now available as Commons:File:6battalion03-07-17.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Manual update

I think something is wrong with the current image. Are you sure it is the right one? --BorgQueen (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Should be fixed. As a side note, do you know if I updated Template:Did you know/Next update/Time correctly? The template doesn't seem to change, even after purging. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed now. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the bot didn't miss it. Are you aware that the update interval is 8 hours nowadays? --BorgQueen (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Bah. I haven't been on WT:DYK, so I must of missed that memo. Apologies for the disruption. ._. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:GA fail

Please share your opinion to my response here. Thank you. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Birks and VC recipients

Hey mate. Again, I'm terribly sorry for being such a bloody pain in regards to Birks' MM. I will have a little tinker, though, and see if I can do something, so back away from the paragraph and don't remove it! ;-) Lol. Now, I've been meaning to mention this for months, ever since you first started work on the Birks' article, and I'm very sorry that I have not until now but I keep forgetting or got distracted (yes, it is a poor excuse), but I do possess I think three sources that mention Birks. I haven't had much of a look to see if they can add much to the article, but I will see if I can add anything extra, if you like. Also, the Australian War Memorial website contains PDF files of recomendations for honours and awards from the First World War—the ones I posted on Birks' came from there—and are a great source for articles. It is located here. The section also has award cards for honours—labelled as "recommendations"—for honours and awards from the Second World War and Korean War, but they generally only contain a few words so aren't magnificent, but they, too, can be helpful. I think that is basically all I wanted to say for now. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still finding may way around the AWM site; it was much easier for Kingsbury because there was a book all about him. ;)

I've checked a few books, and most don't cover Birks beyond and expansion of the VC action, but if you have any more information it would of course be welcome. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol, don't worry, it has taken me a long time to find my way around all of the sectors and resources of the AWM website, though it contains some excellent resources, such as the recommendations, digitalised copies of the official histories from the First and Second World Wars, unit/battalion histories from conflicts, unit diraries, etc. I should be able to tweak the MM para later today, but if not, tomorrow at very the latest. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I have worked out why there has been so much confusion! I was looking through the sources, just about to tweak the para on Birks' MM, when I realised that two of the three recommendations for his MM from the AWM are before his Pozières action. It appears that those two—which are the same—were for actions at Gallipoli. The recommendation was not forwarded/approved by the divisional CO until 10 June 1916. His MM was for his work at Pozières, and he was not rewarded for Gallipoli, but it is by far worth a mention that he was recommended for the MM for Gallipoli. Well, back to working on his Pozières MM para! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph now re-worded; tweak as you see fit! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was odd he apparently had two recommendations. :)

Thanks a heap, it looks excellent. It's fantastic that there are editors like you willing to put time and effort in. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

When I posed the recommendations on the review page I only had a quick look at them, and just figured they were the same, just worded differently! Interesting, though. Well, we are both working towards our FT goal, and I'm willing to help other editors whenever I can. :) Cheers, mate. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well done on achieving Good article status! You have done an excellent job! I do have one recommendation, however: I would archive the discussion contents of the talk page as it is long, rather a mess and discussion has ended on all matters bought up on the talk page. ;-) Again, well done. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Beale

Hi BF, someone has recreated the above out of process yet again; you deleted it in June after an AfD. Would you mind re-deleting? The person behind it has been extremely persistent. This is probably the 10th time or so it has been recreated on one page or another. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted and salted. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I have been contacted by a US publisher complaining that an article about me was deleted within 5 minutes of it being posted. She says that "The article was balanced, factual, and neutral. It met Wikipedia guidelines in every conceivable way. It had sufficient references, was posted from New Mexico State University by someone with no connection to you whatsoever, and the content paralleled that of many other persons whose entries are available. The next step is journalistic investigation of this practice."

I suspected that SlimVirgin must have been behind this and I see that she has sent you the highly misleading message. Since as you will now know what she says is incorrect, and the deletion as far as I can see, although done by you in good faith on the basis of Slim's message, is explicitly against policy in this area, perhaps it could be undeleted so that people can see whether this article is indeed as the publisher describes (I have no idea) or whether there are valid reasons for deletion (as Slim apparently thinks)? Many thanks. NBeale (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The version deleted was even lesser in quality than the one that was deleted via AfD. For situations like this, where notability has not been expanded, WP:G4 Is the valid reason for deletion. "G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion"

I must ask; why do you want an article so badly? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I do no know what is in the article and have not seen it. However I note that G4 explicitly "excludes articles that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" and "articles that address the reasons for which the material was deleted". From your description that the article was "even lesser in quality" I infer that it is not "substantially identical" and from the description from the publisher it appears that there are no notability problems. The main objection as I recall from the AfD debate was that I had participated in developing the article (while it was in userspace, which is fine, but many of the AfD participants had axes to grind). The notability discussion last time was frankly ludicrous and since then FWIW there have been at least 2 reliable 3rd-party indications, and I would imagine that at least one of them would be mentioned in the article. If you honestly feel that this new article should still be deleted then please go through AfD with reasons, but please conform to policy and do not prevent any other editor from expressing a view on this. Many thanks NBeale (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No. The article was deleted because it was considered to fail the notability criteria. The new article did not satisfy those concerns. If you believe that the AfD was "ludicrous" then you should take the AfD to deletion review. The new article does not have to go through AfD again, the standing consensus is that the subject (you) is not notable and the onus is on you to prove that it has changed, not the other way around. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what this article says and AFAIK nor has anyone else on WikiPedia. You are not entitled to delete an article which in your opinion is not notable unless it is "substantially identical" to the one that was deleted - let alone to "delete and salt" whatever this means. Are you prepared to affirm, as an admin (because you are the only one that can see this article) that it is "substantially identical" to the one that was deleted? NBeale (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If you check the deletion logs, you will see I didn't delete per G4. User:Rjanag did. I'm pretty sure that he watches this page, so he may weigh in, or you can contact him on his talk page. Please be aware, however, that you will need a good reason for you to request an AfD be ignored. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk)

NBeale: I saw the article, and I can confirm that it is substantially worse than the one that was deleted through consensus at AfD. If you want, I can e-mail you copies of both deleted articles to compare.

In your haste to criticize Backslash over the "substantially identical" criterion, you're forgetting another, equally important criterion: if someone re-creates an article, it must address the concerns over which it was deleted by community consensus. In this case, there was a consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (3rd nomination) to delete it, and the new article that was created didn't address any of those editors' concerns.

As for "deleting and salting", that means locking the page so that it can't be re-created again. I did this because it's been deleted and recreated 5 times since early 2007 (you can see the log here).

If you really need to have an article about yourself, here are the things that need to be done:

1. Contest the deletion, rather than repeatedly re-creating it. The place to contest a deletion (for example, if you believe the discussion 'closer' misread the discussion) is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Make sure you read the guidelines before posting there.
2. If the article is to be rewritten, it will have to be written in someone's user space and then submitted to other editors for approval (i.e., just asking people "Hey, can you take a look at my article and tell me if you think it meets the concerns raised before") and moved to real article space afterwards.
3. Don't write the article yourself, as this puts you in a conflict of interest. The article needs to be written by someone else, not you or your publisher. Also, don't create a new account to write the article secretly; this is called sockpuppetry and certain Wikipedia users can find out about it, and if they do they will block you.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag - thanks for this explanation. On what basis are you entitiled to speedy delete and salt an article because it is "substantially worse" than a previous article? We agree that g4 does not apply?

With regard to your other points: I have not recreated this article. Following PastorJohn's advice I absented myself from the discussion. If somebody else wants to write an article about Nicholas Beale it is up to them. I do not even know who created this article, and it is not my publisher who has contacted me. I have never indulged in sockpuppetry and can see no basis for this suggestion. (By all means email me the articles but this is beside the point. The new article should not have been speedied, let alone the page locked, unless there is a relevanty policy that I am unaware of. You are explicitly not allowed to speedy delete pages becasue of alleged lack of notability. NBeale (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you read any of my message above? Once again, the new article did not address any of the reasons for which the original was deleted. It included absolutely no inline references. I will e-mail you a copy of it, and chances are you'll be embarrassed by how bad it was.

As for "it is not my publisher who contacted me"...that's not what you said in your first message, up above. And the fact that your publisher is so concerned with your article, and seems to be upset that you're missing out on free advertising, still suggests a conflict of interest. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rjang. Thanks for emailing me the article. I think we can agree that:

1. This is not at all identical to the original article. Indeed it is about as different from the original article as it could be whilst being about the same subject.
2. It has been written by an editor who does not understand how to do references (or wikilinks) or how to explain notability. All of these could be addressed by other editors collaborating, in the best traditions of Wikipedia.
3. In two respects it is an improvement on the previous article: (a) It is much shorter, (b) It is completely neutral and independent - many of the AfD people were concerned that I had made contributions to the earlier article (even though in fact these were made whilst in Userspace) which they felt made it "puffery" etc..

Now it is explicit policy that you are not allowed to speedy delete such an article - either under g4 or because you don't think the subject us notable, so I would be very grateful if you could restore it and then hopefully a number of editors can collaborate to get it into a proper state and meet the concerns you raise about references and notability which, as we both know, should be addressed by suitable tags.

I'd just like to respond to a couple of other points if I may:

• You say you have "salted" because it has been "deleted and recreated 5 times since early 2007" Actually it was only legitimately deleted twice - the other occasions were out-of-process admin actions. And the notability of the subject was obviously transformed by Questions of Truth - I don't think there are any examples of the author of a notable book not being considered notable (unless he/she has done absoultely nothing else) and quite frankly the only reason it got deleted last time was because some editors objected to my involvement. Unless there is some policy that allows you to do this, I would be grateful if you refrained.
• Don't you remember Inspector Clouseau? It was not my publisher :-)

NBeale (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)