User talk:DarkFalls/Archive January 2012

January, 2012     Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savage Sun Please follow-up on this AfD. Another editor has provided links for the passage of WP:BAND. Goodvac (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Done. —Dark 23:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC) User:Simenon7 and Wesley Blakeslee DMD Would it be appropriate to have User:Simenon7 blanked as a reproduction of a now-CSD'd vanity page? There's no real chance that topic could ever pass WP:N. --GrapedApe (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC) No of course not. It's his user page. Unless the user is actively advertising something in violation of G11, there's no reason to delete/blank it. We tend to give editors leeway on their userpages. —Dark 02:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Parallel Element Processing Ensemble rename request If you'll check the talk page and the previous mover's history you'll find there was no discussion at all, let alone consensus, for the previous move. There are several references that support the notion that this is a proper name, not a generic term, so "downcasing" the name was counter to article naming conventions. Why is consensus now needed to reverse the previous move? Jeh (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC) I suggest you discuss this with Tony1, and not myself. He is well-versed in WP:MOS so I was inclined to trust his judgement regarding the proper article title conventions. Further, I don't believe that the page move would be considered non-controversial considering it's a revert of another page move, hence why you need to obtain consensus before moving it back. —Dark 06:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC) The appropriate discussion has been opened. However I must say that I find nothing in WP:MOVE that suggests a revert of a move should be considered any more controversial, thus requiring consensus, than was the original move. (Indeed, it says "To undo a move from page A to page B, simply move page B back to page A.") Or to put it the other way around, if the revert is controversial then so was the original move... and as the original move in this case was not even discussed, it should be reverted with extreme prejudice on that basis. (grin) I actually think all page moves should be discussed and reach consensus first. But as that is not policy or even a guideline, I see no reason why a newly-minted name should have any more stature than the original name. Quite the opposite, in fact. Jeh (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC) It's one way of preventing move-warring. Under more heated/controversial circumstances, I would of course move back to the original title. But this is such a small issue that it might be best to just leave it as it is, until an agreement is reached. —Dark 10:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC) I would think that requiring discussion first would be more effective as preventing move-warring. Maybe the "move" button should bring up a warning, much as "Save page" does if you don't fill in a summary: "If you think there is any possibility that this move would be considered controversial, you should discuss it on the article talk page first..." Declaring a move "non-controversial" should be even more carefully considered than declaring an edit as "minor", as a move can be far more disruptive (and, as we see here, laborious to fix). In any case, please see Talk:Parallel element processing ensemble. Unanimous agreement exists, Tony included. Thank you for your time. I wouldn't bother you here again but there seems no way to request an early closure on the RM page. Jeh (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Article's been moved. —Dark 23:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Deletion of the Article "Mission High School (San Jose, California) Last evening (in London time), I created an article for this high school after seeing a mention of it in the Huffington post. And yes, it was a hoax. But I feel that the process of deleting the article was unjust and unfair in nearly every way. About 10 minutes after the article's creation, it was proposed for speedy deletion on the grounds that its subject was of little significance. a few mnutes later, it was changed to a proposal for deletion on the grounds that it seemed to be a hoax. On the deletion tag, it mentioned that I could object to the proposal using the article's discussion page, so I took the chance to defend the page's legitimacy using an article from a well-known news website, i.e. the Huffington Post's article for the London 2012 New Year's Day Parade. And I countered every reason given in the proposal using logical statements and evidence. And the next morning, I find the page suddenly deleted. And my defence was also deleted because the page was deleted. Why was I given a chance at defence if it was to be ignored? And what's the point of having discussion pages for articles if no discussion commences? -Michael Liu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.151.241 (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Creating a hoax is by no means the correct method to test out Wikipedia's deletion process. Regarding the deletion of the article, I took into account the investigation of fellow editor about the school, which is found here, and was suitably satisfied that the article was indeed a hoax. Your argument that the school exists was solely based on a Post article, which actually referred to Mission San Jose High School. In Wikipedia, obvious hoaxes such as these can be deleted immediately under G3, so I dealt with it accordingly. You must understand that if every article was given a chance for prolonged discussion (even when it is obviously a hoax), we would not get anything done. —Dark 06:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC) If I may add. I was the editor who proposed deletion of this hoax, then took it to AfD. Michael Liu, you created a hoax article, lied about it and deliberately mis-represented a source that you knew was incorrect to try to justify the article. Saying you "countered every reason given in the proposal using logical statements and evidence" is just incorrect. I responded in detail on the article's talk page and in the discussion: see the AfD discussion that did take place. Your article was quickly deleted because it was a hoax. If you don't want your articles deleted, don't attempt to disrupt Wikipedia by creating hoaxes. You were given multiple chances to defend your article. Your defences were at best flawed, at worst deliberate attempts to mislead. You have no grounds that I can see for complaint. If I were you, I'd be grateful you haven't had further action taken against you. Sparthorse (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC) some hideously ugly talkback template Hello, DarkFalls. You have new messages at Erpert's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 09:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Deletion of IFJiauzs Love the deletion rationale. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Deuce You contested speedy deletion at Aron (album), The Call Me Big Deuce EP and The Two Thousand Eight EP saying they were by a notable artist. But, according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron "Deuce" Erlichman he is not a notable artist. Does this lead you to reconsider? RichardOSmith (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC) But Hollywood Undead is a notable band. The fact that the albums are by an artist who was a former member of the band is an indication of significance, albeit not a significant one, therefore it passes A7. But again, I have my doubts whether it'll be considered notable enough in AfD. My suggestion would be to tag the articles with {{prod}} or to submit them all in one AfD nom. Cheers. —Dark 11:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Ok, thanks. I think you are right to err on the side of caution; I have gone the AfD route: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron (album). RichardOSmith (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Overtune Hi DarkFalls, I ran Overtune through Google Translate. The article is about a group of friends who have formed a band. It does not contain an assertion of importance. Do we really need to wait for formal translation before CSD:A7 can be applied? Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC) It would appear not. —Dark 12:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks Thank you for deleting my pages under CSD U1. Here's a cookie hope you like 'em ;-) benzband (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC) The Signpost: 02 January 2012 Interview: The Gardner interview News and notes: Things bubbling along as Wikimedians enjoy their holidays WikiProject report: Where are they now? Part III Featured content: Ghosts of featured content past, present, and future Arbitration report: New case accepted, four open cases, terms begin for new arbitrators Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Deletion of Dynamic Media article Hi, I posted an article about Dynamic Media roughly 10 minutes ago and it was sent to "speedy deletion", I modeled it after the Starbucks page and am wondering why it was deleted? Would like any tips to fix so I can get it posted - this is my first article so am looking for any feedback. Thanks Ryanpebble (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Make sure you demonstrate the notability of the article, as well as make sure you reference reliable sources that prove this. The information in the article must be verifiable. Thanks. —Dark 02:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks. Just read through the notes/links you sent. I posted references in my "reference" section which would be from leading sites/blogs in the industry (i.e. background music = XM/SIRIUS is #1 music source) - are those considered notable? I ask as the company is starting to make an impact but it is not like you will find them in Time magazine or CNN or anything like that. By having a link to the source would that qualify as verifiable? Thanks again! Ryanpebble (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC) A blog wouldn't be considered a reliable source per WP:BLOGS. All information within the article must be verified by an external third-party source, preferably through the use of in-line citations. If it isn't possible to find significant coverage of the company in a reliable third-party publication, then it may not meet our inclusion criteria. —Dark 02:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Ok. I have reworked the article which I believe will meet the standards you mentioned. Just needed to go back to my research and cite correctly and edit. Do I start from scratch and begin the article or post here? Thanks Ryanpebble (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC) I restored the article here, where you can work on it. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia at the moment. You'll need to find more independent sources to work with, rather than the "about us" on the company website or any other self-publishing sources. —Dark 22:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Sri Lanka Armed Forces Hello. I apologise for the 3rr/edit war, but per your warning, please see this removal.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  06:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Wait til ANI sorts it out. He's been blocked. —Dark 06:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Talkback Hello, DarkFalls. You have new messages at Marcus Qwertyus's talk page. Message added 11:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Marcus Qwertyus 11:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Marcus Qwertyus This user seems to be on a mission against another user. While this is all good and well, it seems as if his reversions are harming the factuality of a lot of pages. Specifically, edit requests that have been done in regards to edit requests to the Ohio Senate, and Template:Ohio State Senators seem to be problematic. You can see that both edit requests were indeed authentic at www.ohiosenate.gov. Furthermore, there were multiple legitimate pages deleted including John Eklund, Jack Cera, Barbara Boyd, Barbara Sears, Sean O'Brien, Jay Hottinger, Ron Gerberry, Bruce Goodwin, Robert Sprague, and Jim Buchy. Jason Wilson reversions are also incorrect, and Joe Schiavoni reversions are incorrect. All of these need to be repaired ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.158.121.29 (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Somehow, I do doubt that you are an uninvolved party. —Dark 12:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Ben Heard why did you delete my page??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiamondLife1 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Please read our policy on biographies. —Dark 00:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Discussion on Zadar DarkFalls, thank you for your comment on [1]. If the article Zadar and in general the articles about the history of Dalmatia are so contentious there is a reason. Croatian and Italian historiographies about this region are very different but as the situation is today the Croatian POV is reported with bigger enphasis, even when English or German sources confirm the Italian approach (don't ask me why, may be because Croatian users have contributed more to the articles or are more numerous). Perhaps if the articles were presenting a more compromised position, the disputes would disappear. The issue is that there is strong opposition about some Croatian users to make any change in this direction. This explains why periodically there are so many problems. --Silvio1973 (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC) The Signpost: 09 January 2012 Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang In the news: Wikipedia ends annual fundraising drive; Monmouthpedia launches WikiProject report: From Traditional to Experimental: WikiProject Jazz Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3 Technology report: December in more detail; and why the MediaWiki codebase was "slushed" this week Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Deletion of Cameron E King page Hello, You had deleted the page I created for humanitarian Cameron E King. Could you please let me know the reason for the same and if I would like to re submit the page, what alterations do you suggest I incorporate? Waiting for your response, Thanks, Swdandap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swdandap (talk • contribs) 05:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Make sure the article meets our notability guideline. —Dark 06:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Importantly, you'll need to find reliable third-party sources (newspaper articles are ideal) on the person, so that it meets our guideline on reliable sourcing. —Dark 06:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Admin's Barnstar For beating me to the punch, several times, while clearing CA:CSD, I award you this star. cheers Guerillero | My Talk 07:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Request for comments Hi! You were the administrator looking over the case for Zadar and Luciano Laurana at the Edit warring noticeboard and it would be great if you could provide a statement of your view at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silvio1973 and Zenanarh. The dispute is still going on, please see the page for more details. Thanks so much, Whenaxis about talk contribs 00:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Umm, no I wasn't. I merely commented on ANI about my view on the situation. If you need some help with the RfC however, I will be happy to oblige, although I do need to refamiliarise myself with the topic of discussion. I have not followed the case since I gave evidence at the Dalmatia arbitration a few years back. —Dark 00:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Yes, comment rather than 'looking over'. And thanks for taking the time out for doing this, Whenaxis about talk contribs 00:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Charleta Tavares This page was deleted hastily. There was no copyright infringement present and she is a prominent politician in Ohio. Re: Barbara Boyd Re your message: I did not delete those articles due to copyright violations. I deleted them because they were created by the banned user OSUHEY. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OSUHEY/Archive#12_January_2012. The articles were deleted three years ago for copyright reasons, but I was not involved with those deletions. I think you misread the deletion log. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Re your message: He was banned for the copyright violations and the sockpuppetry according my reading of the discussion. But whatever, I really don't want to argue about the issue because I really don't care that much one way or the other about the articles. If you want to restore all of the deleted articles from CarolynMSmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), feel free to restore them. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC) I'll restore the stubs. —Dark 23:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC) I do not agree with the restoration as there is no exemption to CSD G5 per your italicized if there is no problem with the article. The only exemption is "which have no substantial edits by others" and the articles do not have any substantial edits by others. So the articles are your responsibility now. I do not think aiding a banned user in getting new articles created is a good idea. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC) CSD-G5 is pretty clear and relevant here: "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others." Marcus Qwertyus 08:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Well in that case, and since you believe that G5 merits following to the letter, regardless of circumstance, feel free to revert/delete all of Cool3's contribution on the project. I believe that consists of several FAs. And they were created in violation of a ban. I do not feel it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia to delete perfectly fine articles just because it's been created by a banned editor. But obviously if you feel differently, feel free to contest it. The G5 criteria was made to delete articles that are problematic, due to the banned editor's history. I see no problem with the articles in their current form, so I restored it. —Dark 10:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC) OSUHEY's contributions have been full of copyvio, and the use of sockpuppetry to re-add problems means that G5 absolutely applies. Dark, you couldn't be more wrong in this case. Allowing this guy's edits to remain after the crap he's pulled (as someone who tackles copyright, I've seen a lot) defeats the purpose of G5 entirely. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC) My interpretation of G5 is that it allows admins to delete articles when there are doubts regarding an article's validity, due in part to the history of the creator. Sure I agree that OSUHEY'S contributions merit deletion when there is any suspicion regarding copyright violations, on a case by case basis. However I do believe that it is not in the best interests of the encyclopedia that articles that have no problems or any suggestions of such are deleted purely due to the editor's background. I restored the articles because there was no copyright violation within them. I ask, if an banned editor creates an FA, should we delete it under G5 solely to punish him? The articles I have restored are watchlisted, and I will monitor them should any problems arise. In any case, I haven't talked to you in a while and it's nice to see you're still around :) —Dark 07:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC) That is not how G5 is or has ever been. See WP:BANS#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. G5 is for contributions by banned or blocked during the term of their ban. OSUHEY's sanctions have explicitly been agreed upon by the community. Naturally you are going to have to go through the community to reach any sort of ban modification. Marcus Qwertyus 06:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC) I'm not proposing that his ban is modified, and never have done. Feel free to block any sockpuppets of his in the future. —Dark 06:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Why are you deviating from the agreed-upon sanctions if you aren't going to propose ban modification? Marcus Qwertyus 06:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC) "Even if the editor only makes good edits they will be rebanned for evasion." Nowhere does it say that the good edits must be reverted/deleted. Is there any specific sanction regarding OSUHEY that all his articles must be deleted? —Dark 07:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC) And I quote, from WP:BAN: "This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." I do not believe there is any ambiguity in this situation. —Dark 07:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Can't say I am incredibly pleased, but I have deleted the articles in question based on advice from a friend and upon reflection of the unnecessary controversy this may have created. However, I will be remaking the articles from scratch in the near future, so obviously G5 would not apply. —Dark 07:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC) When you opt to remake the pages, please also create Anthony DeVitis, who now represents the 43rd District, and Nicholas Celebrezze. who now represents the 15th District of the Ohio House. Also, John Eklund and Charleta Tavares need to be recreated in the Ohio Senate. John Carey has resigned the House, as has Timothy DeGeeter and Richard Hollington. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.209.103 (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC) The Signpost: 16 January 2012 Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18 Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now? News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near Technology report: ArticleFeedback moves into new trial phase; and how MediaWiki integrates with Facebook, IPv6, and PostgreSQL explored Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Question regarding IP block Hi, DarkFalls! I have a question, I have intentions of becoming an Administrator, one day. I mainly would like to work in the field of vandalism. I came accross this malicious IP, and reported them ~ however, they only got a week ~ for some edits which are highly innapropriate. Is there a specific reason as to why they only got a week? Also, if possible, could you please remove the following edits/edit summaries from these revisions: this (content) this (content and edit summary) this (edit summary) this (content) I'm not one to be offended by this behaviour ~ however, in this case I actually am. Things said by that IP, was not only insulting, but repulsive, and was a stretch. Also I think this is the same person behind this IP. Thank you, -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 11:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC) We rarely block an IP for a long time on the first offence, as IP addresses change with time (someone else might be stuck with the IP address in a week's time and we obviously do not want to limit access to others). In the case of those edits, they don't seem to be any more abusive than many others I've seen - I am disinclined to delete revisions unless they are very serious. It's a waste of time humouring these children with your time and effort. —Dark 13:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Hmm, it appears to be sockpuppetry by CharlieJ13. The modus operandi matches him, anyway. —Dark 13:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC) I totally forgot an IP can be more than one person -_- wow, I shouldn't be editing late! :) Anyway, I guess I and the others, can simply just ignore it. Thank you, -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 00:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC) The Signpost: 23 January 2012 News and notes: SOPA blackout, Orange partnership In the news: World watched as Wikipedia shut down for SOPA blackout WikiProject report: The Golden Horseshoe: WikiProject Toronto Featured content: Interview with Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the best of the week Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Muhammad images, AUSC call for applications Technology report: Looking ahead to MediaWiki 1.19 and related issues Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC) DRV A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;). If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC) How dare you spam my talk page, you dirty Brit. —Dark 11:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Quiet, convict. Ironholds (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC) We're the best export you ever had. Now you're stuck with dirty beaches and miserable weather. —Dark 11:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Disagree, we export scotch. Ironholds (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC) I believe that is Scotland, Englishman. —Dark 12:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC) The Signpost: 30 January 2012 News and notes: Update on Global Development, Wikipedia Day NYC is a success, JFK audio on Commons In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology Featured content: Featured content soaring this week Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19 Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC) The above archive is a past discussion. Please direct all new discussion to the current talk page. Thank you.