User talk:Prolog/Archive 7

Can you please protect Mountain Dew

Can you please protect the Mountain Dew article from page moves entirely? There are some, ahem, interesting accounts out there which seem intent on moving this despite a lack of consensus to do so. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Move of films with Italian titles

Please see this on WP:AN/I. (Despite the title, some of the films are Italian, not Spanish.) Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Rock and rooll

Can you move it to Talk:Rock and roll? I tried but It will no let me do it. :( Bidgee (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it. Prolog (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Your Havana Times deletions ?

Hey Prolog, nice to meet you. A question: In the last week you have removed Havana Times article links at least 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 times from various wiki articles under the rationale of “linkspam”. The reason I noticed this is I have many Cuba related articles watch-listed. Moreover, you even removed the Havana Times from the list of newspapers in Cuba. I note as well that many of these articles did not have a long list of refs (the reasoning behind avoiding "WP:Linkspam") and that you have not removed any other articles other than ones deriving from the Havana Times. Are you trying to purposely suppress this paper as a news source on Wikipedia? This answer seems obvious, but in the honor of WP:Assume good faith I wanted to ask you first. If so why? I note that you have not deleted these under the rationale of them being biased, WP:Fringe, or WP:Pov etc, you’ve simply declared their presence in each case "linkspam". I wanted to give you a chance to explain yourself. Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 13:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not notice this section at first. See my reply to this below. "In the last week" is a bit misleading as I reverted and cleaned up after the linkspam in 11 minutes today, after it had come up on my watchlist. This cleanup included checking for previous linkspam. The addition to list of newspapers in Cuba was also spam, by 83.56.176.134. Two other good reasons for the removal would be that Havana Times is apparently not a newspaper at all, and that the article has been deleted and protected from re-creation. Even good faith link additions to this website would not meet WP:EL as the website does not seem to be a reliable source. Prolog (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I now see what you were doing and would agree with your rationale. I hope you also see how I could have at first interpreted it. Best of luck to you.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 15:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Linkspam

Why did you remove that newspaper article from the Cuban Five article? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It was linkspam by anonymous editors, and havanatimes.org does not seem to be a newspaper but a new blog or other online publication, per the deleted article at Havana Times. See Special:Contributions/83.38.248.251 and Special:Contributions/81.37.144.66. Prolog (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how it falls under the definition of linkspam. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Persistent mass addition of external links despite talk page warnings almost always means a conflict of interest and promotional intentions. This is the very definition of linkspam on Wikipedia. Prolog (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, I thought it was just for for-profit sites. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Your "Zeitgeist Refuted" deletion

Why did you remove the "Zeitgeist Refuted" page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrotherElliott (talk • contribs)

Because the article did not indicate why its subject was important or significant, and you did not provide any reliable sources that might have done that. This qualified the page for speedy deletion. Prolog (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but what makes the Zeitgeist, the movie, page important and Zeitgeist Refuted, the movie not important? What must be done in order to re-post the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrotherElliott (talk • contribs)

The Zeitgeist article was re-created when it met Wikipedia's policies for inclusion, such as notability and verifiability, after reliable sources had published enough information about the film. Prolog (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comments

Okay, apologies about that. I only added an refimprove tag to Kindred of the Dust for example as all the citations come from only two sources, something which i thought was not the desired situation for wiki articles. Comments noted though. Many thanks, MarquisCostello (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

haha good one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.254.235 (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Jarmo Lehtinen

Thanks for doing this, I thought it was pretty daft when I looked at 'What Links Here' for the commentator, and all the links appear to want the co-driver. I got very bored after changing a few links so I gave up. Being from Finland yourself, I'm sure you can make a judgment on which Jarmo Lehtinen is more significant. Will I need to re-change the links I changed earlier if the swap goes ahead? Thanks, Petera93 (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If the requested move goes through, the wikilinks should be changed back so that the now-redirect at Jarmo Lehtinen (co-driver) can be deleted. There is no hurry, though. Prolog (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

re:blank lines

Hi. I've not read that before, TBH and usually desirable seems like a nice to have, rather than a must. Thanks for the heads-up. Lugnuts (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you delete my valid post?

A valid reference, two valid references and a signature, are you going to undo the changes to List of Mensans again? --Arne Schwarck (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The person is non-notable and the sources are not reliable. This is not a list of all people who claim to be Mensans, but a list of notable people with reliable sources verifying their Mensa membership. Since the person you keep adding is you, you also need to mind WP:COI. Your edits can be seen as spamming. Please also stop creating the cross-namespace redirect as those are speedy deleted per WP:CSD#R2. Prolog (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Show me a valid post, Say Scott Adams, it links to AskMen and states nothing about mensa! I give you a membership number and all, call them up and ask if you don't think the authenticity is correct. Look at Asia Carrera – Pornographic actress and blogger, the link does not even come up with her name!! How do you find that a valid reference? If you would really be interested in promoting this specific page, then you are not doing a good job about it. --41.247.102.102 (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Carrera ref is not a link but a book and I have fixed the Adams ref now. "Other stuff exists" is not a good argument, however. The list is for notable people only, so stop your self-promotion or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Prolog (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Please undelete Template:DisturbingImage. It is a rejected idea and if it doesn't exist as a rejected idea people will keep recreating it. The template is only used in Wikipedia:WikiProject Graphical content problem and perhaps should be a subpage of that. Either way please undelete it. -- Cat ^chi? 19:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

LSD

Prolog hey,

I went to RM and nobody replied. This is always the way, nothing actually happens until you change something then people wake up. (From their watchlist or whatever.) THat's understandable, but it was listed at RM, you could argue I didn't leave it long enough but since I have now 3 people arguing on it I would say I did.

Anyway with the suggestion of User:AndrewHowse it's being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#LSD. There's a little talk at his and my user pages, but nothing I think that isn't covered at RM and that page.

Actually, if I want to change the status quo I just Be Bold. I just did. However, also I always try to have good faith, and you may notice I try through incremental editing to ensure every edit stands on its own feet so that reversion and other editors' opinions are easily redone.

Best wishes I hope to see you at that page to argue it out. I've shown my case easily: 30 pages on DAB, there's no way that lysergic acid is particularly special for LSD (disambiguation) (it's a dab page ffs it's not supposed to give prominence to one particular definition), and certainly not for LSD as main title. I might lose those arguments but I think at least we should have them; I'm sorry to have to make changes before anything gets noticed (I did raise at WP:RM before changing it) but in reality life nothing every gets done until you Be Bold and change it.

It's equally out of order then for it to be changed back; the three edit rule is, I know, for one editor, but c'mon, that was the same revert twice, and can we discuss this rather than just reverting over and over again?

I've made a couple of other minor edits in the dab page but these are just rearranging (I am not sure if the one on numerical analysis should go in engineering or science) and I don't think you would fundamentally object to them, though I should certainly like you to look and see that last one if you think should be in a different category.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey. That is not really how RM works. The page itself is not meant for discussion, but for attracting more editors to an already created discussion (using the standard templates as instructed) at a relevant talk page. After five days, an uninvolved administrator will determine if there is a consensus to move and close the discussion. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Letter to Prolog

Dear Prolog,

Do not make assumptions. The social libertarian reference was perfectly cited, and I am sorry that you take offense to most people thinking you are a communist.

Go get a real job instead of harassing people online to inflate your ego.

Have a nice day,

-John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.252.116 (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Athletics

In response to "John"'s recommendation: Do you fancy making WikiProject Athletics part of a "real job"? I know there's much work to be done on that article set and I saw you world on the World record article before... Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 12:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Delete, censor or vandalize (call it the name you want) the external links additions, I don't care. If you do so, be honest and clean up the whole array in the lists, not just the latest link. BusExplorer.com, HanksTruckPictures.com, Flickr groups and stuff like that are not appropriate and have to be removed or undo your deletions. Also, my two cents: keep just the corporate links and it would really look as an advertissement edited by the company itself. --Villager57 (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to remove all external links that do not meet WP:EL, but do not make the situation worse by adding more spam. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xeno^talk 14:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Further to the above, we would appreciate if you could briefly take the time to place yourself below one of the suggested statements here. If none of these statements represents your current position, please compose your own or simply sign "Not applicable" under "Other quick clarifications". Likewise sign as N/A if you do not want to participate further in this debate. If you choose not to respond then you will likely not be counted with respect to further consensus-determining efforts. –xeno^talk 15:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WHY???

why have you deleted odious page???/(please explain obviously because i didn't understand the description of the deletion)Bazookazz (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The article has been repeatedly recreated after being deleted through AFD twice. As previously, there was no indication why the subject would be important enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please see WP:N, WP:MUSIC and WP:V for information on notability and verifiability standards. Prolog (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ty this is bao and i like your quote —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.30.12 (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

it's a rock band

like any other article on a band on wikipedia.....this is an egyptian band .... who (really) made a difference....by creating a new tribute for metal music .....that is oriental black metal.....this tribute is new stuff that must be considred and known by metal music fans all over the world...i think that issue like that is important enough to has an article on wikipedia.....and if we stand on what you said (that this article has nothing to significant,or is not important)...you must delete all the articles relating to rock bands......odious is a rock band after all ......that has the right to has an article on wikipedia like all rock bands.... hoping you to understand my point of view..... thanks Bazookazz (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You did not read or understand the policies and guidelines I linked in my reply above. Wikipedia is not a band database, but an encyclopedia. Only a very small percentage of bands qualify for inclusion. If you think that Odious is important enough, there should be some coverage in reliable sources. Prolog (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Content

What do you mean? I didn't delete anything, I just added stuff. What did I delete? If I deleted anything it was an accident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.88.242 (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Messages

Did you send me a message back? I got the thing up top that said "You have new messages, but there were no new messages. If you sent me a message, can you please send it again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.88.242 (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

i can add resources and guarantee that this page will be noticeable if it's published

considering the reliable resources issue......i can add rescource for this band in my page...and i guarantee that it's reliable.....and noticeability can be guaranteed if the page is puplished(proved by :that page has been created several times)"although the notability issue isn't very important{Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion} as said in the article of notability"

again i see that this band must have an article on wikipedia.......it has created a new sub-genre in black metal music...that is very enough to prove that it's significant. thanks Bazookazz (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You can create a draft at User:Bazookazz/Odious. If it complies with Wikipedia standards, it can be moved to mainspace. The notability and verifiability issues are very important because these are the reasons for which the page has been deleted before. You need to address them. Prolog (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Virgin Killer

Could you fully protect Virgin Killer for a while? We have all earned a holiday from this user, and the page is not regularly edited by anyone else.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not apply full protection at this time, but I'll keep an eye on the situation as will probably many other admins. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:CPX

Are you sure adding a link to an interview with the subject of an article is merely spamming? I know that user: CPX is adding links from the same organisation to different articles, but all the ones I've checked are perfectly justifiable individually. Even if the intent is to spam, we shouldn't be cutting off our nose to spite our face. I'm incredibly grateful for the link on Zeitgeist, the Movie; a notable subject with very few reliable sources.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you've made a mistake in deleting all of those links. I'm reverting your reverts now; so far all I have come across is subjects of Biog articles talking about what makes them notable, or academic experts talking on their specialised subject...the topic of the article. If you actually watch or listen to any of the links, you'll realise that they are not spamming the centre for Christianity; they're genuinely quality interviews on topics which touch (often only briefly) on Christianity. The standing of the centre itself is neither here nor there; the interview subjects themselves pass RS and/or external link guidelines. And before you get suspicious - check my user page - I'm an atheist, and was suspicious myself until I watched an interview. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I should apologise in part. Some of those links were spam (People from the centre just talking about their Christian reaction to books), but none of the links that CPX has just added today count as that. So you've deleted a good amount of spam, and I've put back in a good amount of RS. Let's both be happy ;-)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It all qualified as spam. Quality interviews or not, mass addition of links to a website one is affiliated with is not allowed. Given that we're building an encyclopedia and not a link directory, re-inserting the spammed links doesn't sound like a great idea to me. However, I won't be reverting non-COI additions. Prolog (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you've got policy wrong there. Mass addition of links to a website is noted in WP:spam as a typical warning signal that someone may be spamming, but in itself it's not against policy (just unwise). It's certainly not spam if the links are all to different parts of the site and each contain directly relevant and RS material to the topic in hand. Surely that's obvious. Suspicion also (rightly, in my view) gets raised because it's a religious site. But again, suspicion is not enough. I'd recommend always sampling at least a couple of the links before you start deleting (after all, we're humans, not bots). I actually spent the time checking each link; the user you warned has not done anything wrong in adding any of the links in the past twenty four hours. If anything, they've benefited wikipedia.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Mass addition of links in this case passes the spammer duck test. Whether the website might in some cases be considered a reliable source is irrelevant. Even reliable news sites have been spammed here. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion, and spam-only accounts that ignore warnings are usually blocked indefinitely. This is not a special case. Prolog (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologise. I didn't realise you never make mistakes.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Seriously though, you can ask for other opinions on the matter. I'm quite certain that other admins would handle this case similarly. Prolog (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Mensans

Hello again, Prolog … Nice recovery of those members I deleted for lack of WP:RS … I was just Too Lazy to try to fix it, but I'll try to remember to check all of those subjects' articles to make the same repair … I think that I tagged all of them that had the bad URL.

Happy Editing! — 141.156.175.125 (talk · contribs) _{07:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)}

Hey. Good to have all the links fixed. By the way, you can sometimes repair dead links also through Archive.org. For example, this link is archived here. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Jim Diamond (Mega Genius) Biography

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you create an inappropriate page, such as Jim Diamond (Mega Genius), you will be blocked from editing. Prolog (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Referring to your message. I am certain their is a misunderstanding. There is no copyright violation. I have permission from Jim Diamond to use a pervious copyrighted biography, which I created from personal communication with Jim Diamond, as a contribution to Wikipedia (see note below).

This is what was include at the end of my article. I would be happy have an email sent to wikipedia verifing the permission from Jim Diamond.

• Notice — Copyright (c) 2009 Jim Diamond.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".

• • http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0

This is my first article for Wikipedia so it is a learning process for me, where I had to first revise my article so that it was not considered to be an article masqurading as an advertising or promotion article, after being deleted a few times. Which was a valid deletion, as it did not have the desired encylopedic look to it. After revising it, it was accepted as a sutiable biography for Wikipedia standards, but was later deleted again because someone assume it was a copyright violation, where the reason why was not clear to me.

I've decide to re-post my article on the biography with some new revisions. Please review it and help correct any problems with it, so that it is acceptable to Wikipedia policies.Deadalus821 (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues aside, all articles must meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability and verifiability. Self-published claims for significance are not reliable and can not be used as proof of notability. You need to find non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Prolog (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, Deadalus has filed a request for unblock. I'm inclined to grant that request, but I'm not going to do anything until I talk with you first. I was just curious — why block indefinitely without any shorter blocks? I thoroughly agree that a block was warranted after the different warnings that were given to Deadalus, but I don't at all understand an indefinite block. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if you generally reply here, please leave me a talkback. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that all of the user's edits were more or less (self-)promotion of a non-notable person and/or a website, I classified the account as spam-only. I definitely support an unblock if he agrees not to circumvent the salting again and instead takes his userspace draft to DRV. Either way, feel free to unblock. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

User uploading copyvio images and text

I noticed that you have previously warned User:Robyc73 about uploading copyrighted content and he's at it again. Do you think this rise to the level of admin attention? -- Brianhe (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Warned & deleted. I will keep an eye on the user. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto III

Hi - the IP is at it again, from a different IP this time. Can you help? ArcAngel (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed it as you posted here. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Review

Hi Prolog.

I'm looking into a deletion review referring for the Jim Diamond (Magician) Biography and I was wondering if you would consider giving the Biography a second look or possibily restoring the deleted Biography. I'm sure you know based on my previous defense for the Biography on my user talk page that I consider the speedily deletion in error.

Thanks, Deadalus821 (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The deletion review will restore the article if the deletion was inappropriate, or remove the creation protection and allow recreation if the userspace draft is convincing enough. There is not much point in me doing anything before the DRV. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did the the instructions on the deletion review page say that I should attempt to resolve the deletion with you first? I was just wondering if we both agreed that a speedily deletion error was made (no bodies perfect) where the admin could restore the biography? Deadalus821 (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I stand by my deletion. Jim Diamond (Mega Genius) was protected from recreation, so you should not have tried to recreate your article under a different title. The new page was also essentially identical to those which had been found to fall under A7 and/or G11 by other admins. Prolog (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that it was protected form recreation at the time. There should of been some message that stated so. The reason for the title change to Jim Diamond (Magician) from Jim Diamond (Mega Genius) was due to the consideration that the name Mega Genius could be considered promotional, even though I prefer the name. The revised biography was to remove promotional wording so that it has a netural point of view, but lets stay on topic. This was the first time the biography was deleted under A7. I want to understand why you think the biography has no significance, when the individual has pulled off some astonishing accomplishments within his creative profession such as the “The Million-Dollar Miracle”, as well as holding the highest documented IQ. Certainly such accomplishments are worthy notice, which is the purpose of notability. Isn't it fair to say the biography was speedily deleted unfairly or in error as it seems you had other reasons for the deletion? Therefore it's only fair to restore the biography if it was deleted unfairly. Deadalus821 (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Mega Genius was once speedied as A7. And I could have picked G11 or G3 from the drop-down box instead. Accomplishments not verified by reliable sources do not belong on Wikipedia. Prolog (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me. So are you admitting that you are proposing other reasons for the deletion of the biography and that it was speedily deleted unfairly under the criteria for A7 as it does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source? Or are you unwilling to admit that an error was made and do not want to take responsibility for correcting the mistake? Did you read and understand the defense for the biography as to how the biography already complies to Wikipedia's policies? If your just picking suggested deletion reasons from a drop-down box. I would kindly suggest you actually read articles and Wikipedias' policies to understand how they apply first before you go head and delete articles. Deadalus821 (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but we continue to disagree on whether I made a mistake or not and whether your article is suitable or not. You should take this to DRV. Prolog (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This conversation should not be based on biased disagreements, but about whether the biography actually complies with Wikipedias' policies. I have read through a good portion of Wikipedias' polices and did not find a policy that provided obvious evidence that invalidates the acceptance of the Biography. If I did I would not be pursing this course of action and would have moved on long ago. Unless there is a special exception or policy that I am unaware of or undoubtedly in error please tell me. However it is quite obvious that you are avoiding my questions because you cannot provide a valid defense for the deletion of the Biography, where you are only opposing Wikipedias objective of massively categorizing a free flow of useful information. I do however appreciate your timely responses and respectable attitude throughout this process. Deadalus821 (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Your page was speediable under three different CSD criteria and your userspace draft does not meet WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV or WP:N. I am "avoiding" your questions because a) I believe you are not hearing my answers and I don't like to go on a repeat-mode and b) if you consider my "defense" invalid, you should start a DRV instead of posting here. And actually, Wikipedia's objective is to be an encyclopedia of verifiable information. Prolog (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I did not get back to you sooner, I’ve been very preoccupied with other matters. I still consider that we can make additional progress before a DRV. Thank you for proposing additional reasons. I noticed that you did not include A7 but rather WP:N, I presume you are referring to the basic criteria of reliability under the guidelines of notability, even though notability for people is not policy for biographies.

I do not consider the statement, Accomplishments not verified by reliable sources do not belong on Wikipedia, to be quite accurate. The reference I have provided is a reliable source under Wikipedia polices. The fact of an independent authors name at the end of the verifiable copyrighted referenced Mega Genius® Biography makes it a Secondary source where Jim Diamond is the Primary source thereby omitting it from the category of a self-published source. The reason why companies do this is 1) why do work when you can just pay a professional to do it and 2) to have an independent point of view which is intellectually independent of the subject that alleviates conflicts of interest. Of course, even companies and major news companies with objectives in mind induce baises into articles. Therefore, it is unreasonable to attempt to invalidate a reliable source of information that comes from a company that has a professional staff to manage the website, customer service and its product. The reference verifies the entire content of the Wikipedia biography where multiple sources are not needed, which meets the basic criteria of WP:PEOPLE and WP:RS relating to the section: Reliability in specific contexts for biographies of living persons. I have also added some additional content to the user space draft, “The Stupidest Statements Awards” and references for further verification, to eliminate doubt and increase the perception of reliability.

I still would like to understand what sections and sentences you consider not to reflect a neutral point of view? Deadalus821 (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Does the "official biographer" have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Or his company? Or the subject's website? In the absence of evidence to the contrary; no, no and no. Feel free to ask for more opinions on this on WP:RSN, however. The NY Daily News and Kalamazoo Gazette references you added are reliable, but are just repeating an awards press release and have no significant coverage on the person. There is no point in NPOV improvements until the subject is proven notable and verifiable enough to be included here. Prolog (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

While the reference Mega Genius® Biography does comply with portions of Wikipedias’ policies, you are correct there is no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The reference then falls into the section Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves on page, WP:RS. There are 5 requirements the reference has to meet under this section. The 5th requirement is the requirement that is not met, as a significant portion the article is primarily based on the referenced source. Therefore I have significantly simplified the biography and removed unverified portions (satisfying the 5th requirement) leaving material content that reasonable for the existence of the biography and portions that are verified by alternate sources. I was wondering if you could review the draft to determine if it is reasonable for use of Wikipedia? Thanks. Deadalus821 (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Much better, although some of the sources are unreliable and you should use inline citations, but consider concentrating on fixing the notability issues. Prolog (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

While Wikipedia uses primary sources, which are reliable in a given context especially in sensitive situations where the person is still living, it does not meet basic criteria for notability which request independent sources. It is also understood that notability guidelines are not policy for articles on people, allowing for such exceptions that are reasonable for the creation of such articles. Would the proposed draft be acceptable for this exception or would you recommend that I present this question to the deletion review for resolution? Deadalus821 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to the WP:IAR "exception" on WP:N and WP:BIO, it is a standard addition (Template:Subcat guideline) for all guidelines and not applicable in this case. While WP:BIO as written is a guideline, the principle behind it is a de facto policy. You will not find any exceptions made to it, although there is often disagreement on whether a subject meets the notability standards. You should go to DRV. Prolog (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

==Deletion review for Jim Diamond (Magician)==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jim Diamond (Magician). 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. Deadalus821 (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Dhj793

Hi, User:Dhj793 just re-uploaded a bunch of copyvio images you deleted. Triplestop x3 03:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm late now but I'll keep an eye on his/her contributions once the block expires. Prolog (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Showtime2009

Hi, I noticed you warned User:Showtime2009 about the abuse of rollback last week. I just came across a couple of their edits which I find strange: [1], [2]. Note that he reverted me with the second edit which I don't mind except I was restoring sourced material that had been deleted without explanation: [3]. If they want to delete that much material then at least an edit summary is necessary. I've reverted the article back to the original state as an IP editor came in after Showtime2009's reversion and deleted still more content: [4] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I should add that I have no specific interest in the content of the article. It's on my watchlist most likely because I reverted an edit in the past during a recent changes patrol. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Dealt with. Thanks for notifying me. Prolog (talk) 06:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Look at this edit

Is this reasonable? Showtime2009 (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with the subject, but this incident doesn't seem to have been widely covered by the media so such a prominent addition looks like undue weight to me. Prolog (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Rajendra_K._Pachauri

Hi, i am one of the editors who has added to the [[5]] article.

Three users seem intent on preventing this [6] edit from being allowed. Those who have edit warred over this issue have incredibly biased views on climate change and seem intent on preventing any edits which in their view may damage the credibility of the science. I used reliable sources in my edit and had them rejected for no reason other than personal points of view. If the article is to remain locked may i ask the following? How do i resolve the current content dispute? If [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] and [[10]] refuse to put their bias aside then how am i meant to add to the article?

Thank you mark nutley (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You will not resolve the dispute by assuming that what you are adding is the truth and that other editors are reverting your edits in bad faith. Focus on content instead of editors; address the concerns and try to reach a consensus. Prolog (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have already explored that avenue to no avail, the bias of the editors i have mentioned will brook no argument. I do not believe they are reverting my edits in bad faith, i believe they are doing it due to their bias on anything to do with AGW. The content i have added is the truth and i supplied reputable sources along with the edit.

So i ask, how do i reach a consensus with those who point blank refuse to listen to any view other than their own? How is a consensus reached? Is it sheer weight of numbers? If so and you look at the reverts and undo`s you will see far more people thought it should remain than wanted it removed. Does that count at all? Sorry for all the questions but i am as you no doubt know quite new to this. Thank you. mark nutley (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Prolog (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and patience :) mark nutley (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Another Scibaby sock?

Jon Drinkwater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - made 4 edits, all WP:SPA on climate change made after the block of sock Huoston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the first to support that sock's addition of nonsense material to IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. I've reverted that, and two of the editor's other three contributions[11][12] as POV and contradicting the sources, but the other I cannot unequivocally dispute. If it's a sock it should be reverted; if not it is just a content issue in an area I would rather not touch.[13] Whoever it is, per WP:DUCK they clearly have a lot more experience on Wikipedia than four edits. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, wikidemon but [[14]]this nonsense is well sourced and pertinent to the article.

However as you know it has taken a different turn in the talk page which you commented on. [[15]]

It is however proving difficult to reach a consensus when those who oppose it`s inclusion do not seem to want to debate :)

Any thoughts on how best to proceed when this happens? I don`t want to get fed up and just bang it in just for it to be reverted on spurious grounds and the whole merry go round starts again. --mark nutley (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've responded directly to your question on my talk page. I didn't use the word "nonsense" because saying that about other people's work tends to inflame things. But I imagine the person who used the phrase meant it literally, that it is nonsense - gibberish - in terms of Wikipedia prose. I don't want to be that harsh, and I don't think the underlying idea is nonsense. Setting aside the content question the writing style is informal and choppy. It talks in a chatty way about the sources, it uses external links instead of footnotes. Just a chunk of not very careful writing. I also feel that sourcing is inadequate, but I wouldn't have reverted it solely on that basis. For me it was the combination of three things - bad writing, contentious introduction of disputed material rather than discussion on the talk page, AND the fact that it was a likely sockpuppet that added it. I don't know what's the best way. I guess treating everyone with courtesy, making online friends with people you disagree with, having the patience to realize you only get your way on busy articles some of the time, and taking things gradually, one step at a time. You can't win arguments by out-arguing other people, because there is no neutral party to declare that you are right. You have to convince the people you disagree with that your version of things, or at least some of it, is worth including in the article. And they have to convince you. Sometimes it is a lot more rewarding to work on lower-traffic articles and those that are not in the editing spotlight. If you care about the climate science issue maybe there is a specific scientist, or official, or report, politician. Maybe a different glacier! Rushing into a place that is having editing problems can be frustrating. I'll probably go back to my usual editing places pretty soon myself. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Although there have been a few other confirmed puppetmasters in the same subject area, this Christmas stocking is definitely missing from Scibaby's drawer. I have filled it with toys. Thanks for dropping me a note, Prolog (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out, but blocking the IPs (like 68.26.135.250, etc) really doesn't have much practical effect. My understanding is that these Sprint PCS IPs are highly dynamic -- he'll get a different one with each login. A rangeblock would help but Raul got torched for doing that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, so it seems but I don't think I'll be doing rangeblocks. He was using 68.26.16.56 for a while, though. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I see... maybe my understanding of how these things work isn't so good. Carry on... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)