User talk:Vianello/Archives/2011/March

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For making me grin when reading your response to a low-clue editor's request for unblocking. The Bushranger One ping only 02:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:

I've responded at Daman222 (talk · contribs). I appreciate the request for comment. See ya 'round Tiderolls 03:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Daman222

I'm a whole-hearted believer in AGF, but I also feel like I have a good nose for BS... If what they said was true (and it showed me what HE added in 1 box, and what I added in another box.) then the edits they made would also have appeared in the edit log by another editor right before them, right?  7  04:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Also - FYI - they are still under autoblock, presumably because their IP matches the anonIP that was doing the other edits at the same time.  7  04:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if they're still under autoblock, then I guess that makes the matter pretty clear. Not a harmful peep out of the user so far though. Since I did the unblock, I'll keep an eye on 'em. Probably my responsibility to string them up in the event of WP:ROPE at this point. Thanks for sharing your concerns, I definitely see what you mean. It's possible the multiple edits did originate from one location, admittedly. I'll just keep a vigilant eye for now. - Vianello (Talk) 22:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Joyson Noel

Regarding User:Joyson Noel/Luis de Menezes Bragança and User:Joyson Noel/Francisco Luís Gomes, see the bottom thread on AN. You managed to delete them quicker than I could get back from the restoration page and remove the tag! You're quite fast. Courcelles 20:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Keep up the good work. Courcelles 20:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move discussions

When making moves based on a requested move discussion, as you did with Extended Access Control, could you please also close the discussion. Suggestions on how to do this are here but the essential bit is the removal of the {{Requested move/dated}} tag (or older version - the one that produces the big notice) so it is no longer listed at WP:RM. Dpmuk (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Files for speedy deletion

Hey Vianello. I noticed that you recently declined the G3 speedy deletion nomination of File:Narwhals breach.jpg, stating "Decline speedy and RM useless text. Perfectly legitimate image, the text content is just no good." However, since the image is hosted on the Commons, the file itself would not be deleted if you were to delete the file page here on Wikipedia, only the text. So deletion would have worked out perfectly fine in this scenario. I just wanted to let you know. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Supertroll (or whatever his name is)

Why not just block his IP from edits? 43?9enter (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of the article "DaruDar"

I saw few hours ago the alert about the deletion for the reason of "No explanation of the subject's significance" but didn't have time to demonstrate it's significance showing the independent mass media sourses that wrote about DaruDar community in different countries. Could you publish back the article in order to let me do that? Karaboz (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami/Template:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami

could you please provide a copy of the contents of the Talk:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami/Template:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami page and put them at this address: User:Gabriele449/Template:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami. Please, If I have no use for them I will request deletion and you can delete them. Thanks and cheers. Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 00:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Ambulatist

Hi, I got asked to look at this and I'm a bit puzzled. You speedy deleted the article as G11 ("Unambiguous advertising or promotion - pages that are exclusively promotional") but unless there's something I am missing, it doesnt seem to be "unambiguous promotion or advertising". It's describing a role not promoting a company or person or anything. Could you take a look as I don't understand what you had in mind or how this is covered by the criterion, thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Found a sock of an IP you recently banned

Jaden111111's first edit had pretty much the same content as 216.73.66.155's edits to Macbeth. Seems to meet WP:DUCK, I think. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Thomas O. Summers

The article was deleted before I received notice it had been nominated for speedy deletion. Please take a second look. I'm new to editing here but the A7 justification explanation includes this "The criterion 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 does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." The article did "indicate why its subject is important or significant." Further citation from credible sources can be provided. Respectfully, Tchicken7 (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Without intervening, I took a look. "Prominent" is a very vague word. It could mean anything. Prominent to whom, how, by whose reckoning, and with what evidence of "prominence"? If the book was important then what factual evidence exists to show this - did it win awards, how widely published or republished was it, who stated it was invaluable, etc.

Behind words like "prominent" lie actual facts, reported in reliable sources. If those facts are stated, his prominence would be obvious. But as it stands, "X was a prominent person" is not really saying much, although it is a claim of importance it's a very nebulous one. Maybe a prod rather than speedy deletion, but either way the end result would be the same - it needs actual cited evidence to show notability. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The word "credible" there is kind of crucial. A credible claim to significance is one backed up by a reliable source, in my opinion. If you like, I can "userfy" a copy of the article for you so that you can work on substantiating that. - Vianello (Talk) 15:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I came on this while looking at the pending AfD for Nashville Christian Advocate, a related article also created by User:Tchicken7. Based on the cached copy of Thomas O. Summers at Google, it appears to me that it did not qualify for speedy deletion. The article contained a source, and a credible statement of the subject's notability. There appear to be quite a few more sources about this person[1]; a 1909 biography says "No man outside the College of Bishops, has been a more potent force in Southern Methodism, than Thomas O. Summers."[2] Especially given the lack of BLP concerns, this is just the sort of article that should be brought to AfD, or userfied as you now suggest, rather than being wiped out by CSD before the new editor--and others who might want to assist--have a chance to look at it. Tchicken has already had another article quickly submitted to AfD which turned out to be a clear keep. Looking at Tchicken7's contributions and talk pages, this appears to be a new editor with the potential to contribute interesting material in a specialized area, who has not exactly had the warmest welcome here so far. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can buy that. I'll make a userfied copy for Tchicken to buff up a bit and re-submit at his/her leisure. (Now up at User:Tchicken7/Thomas_O._Summers)- Vianello (Talk) 18:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE ADVICE

I posted a comment on discussion page of Carnatic Music. An editor Ncmvocalist has deleted without discussions stating that I am Naadapriya. <<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carnatic_music here>>. But I am not Naadapriya. Please advice me how can I proceed at least to post comments to point-out current obvious mistakes. If I revert him/her someone will block me. If I keep quite then the article will stay as is with errors. Thanks. 76.212.5.88 (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)