Wikipedia

User talk:Darkwind/Archive 6

< User talk:Darkwind
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Darkwind in topic Could you take a look at this page supposedly closed for Copyright violations?
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

GOCE April 2013 newsletter

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Guild of Copy Editors April 2013 events newsletter
 

We finished the April blitz and are preparing to start our May backlog elimination drive.

The April 2013 events newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the May drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Flora Martirosian.png

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you for closing this AFD with such a careful rationale.[1] The discussion was thoughtful on both sides of the argument and it deserved a proper closure. At first I was surprised when you said only one person had argued commercial opportunity was being infringed but, looking again, I think you are right! This was strange when it was the specific reason why Spartaz had created the AFD (but took no view on the matter). It is rare for FFD to be anything more than very rough justice (well, I think things have improved a lot since a year or two back for reasons I will not mention).Thincat (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Cayucas

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I'm new to this, but I thought I indicated that this article meets WP:BAND criteria #11. In addition, I have found this: [2] and this: [3] blogs sponsored by the Los Angeles Times and USA Network -- combined with the Guardian and NPR sources, that would seem enough RS to me, but again, I'm new to the AFD process, and maybe votes matter more than evidence. For evidence of Alt Nation play, see [4] They also said today on Alt Nation (though I have not confirmed) that Sirius XMU is currently playing a different Cayucas song. Maybe I should have said Strong Keep because it clearly meets WP:BAND#11? Floatjon (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretation, that evidence is more important than quantity of votes, is correct. The problem is, during the discussion, you did not directly provide any additional evidence along with your position.
Regarding the assertion of meeting BAND#11, you can't just say it's being played. You need to provide some kind of source, like a playlist or something, to confirm it. Additionally, I'm not entirely sure that satellite radio qualifies for BAND#11, but I'm not an expert in music notability and I'm certainly willing to submit that point for discussion.
As for the two sources that were provided during the initial discussion, they alone were not sufficient to pass GNG, especially since one of them is a blog or column specifically devoted to "new" (i.e. non-notable) bands. However, with two additional sources (even if they are in the same vein), this may indeed be enough to pass GNG.
If you can provide something, anything, to verify their songs being played on a national satellite radio rotation, I'm certainly willing to reopen and relist the discussion to allow the community to consider the additional sources. Please let me know what you can come up with. —Darkwind (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The Facebook link in my previous post ([5]) is from the official (I think) Facebook page of the relevant station. The "Alt 18" is their weekly countdown of the most popular songs they have played, which means it was clearly in rotation that week, at least. This is for Alt Nation, a national satellite station (which I listen to regularly, which is why I came to all this in the first place -- I heard the band and wanted to know more about them). The Alt 18 also gets added to the Alt Nation page weekly here, but it's not maintained as an archive -- so you need to look at an old revision to see the WP version; I'm guessing that editor takes it directly from the Alt Nation web site (which also doesn't archive). As an aside, I'll note that the two other sources in my previous post here are under the previous band name - but that shouldn't matter for notability, I would think. As for XMU, here's one source: [6] though I don't know just how reliable it is -- but there are lots of Google hits for XMU Cayucas (including, on page 2 or 3, a cached Google hit on the SiriusXM site itself - though not in the "cached" page, alas). Floatjon (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I missed the Facebook link the first time. I've reopened the discussion, so please feel free to comment if there's more detail you want to provide beyond the links which I put in a comment on the discussion. —Darkwind (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't have anything new to add to the discussion, but I put a note on the talk pages of the people who had previously commented to let them know this was going through another round, since there had been so little comment since the re-relisting. I hope that didn't violate any etiquette rules. Floatjon (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Undoing my edits on my own page

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You undid an edit on my own page, noting I made an unexplained deletion. I deleted a sentence regarding my having addressed the Stanford Academic Senate 20 years ago concerning the provision of domestic partner insurance. The sentence itself is correct, but is a very minor event in comparison to more than 20 years I have spent advancing the rights of LGBT people within the University of California and more broadly. I will post material that better captures that history, with citations. However, I think the reporting of this minor event misrepresents its importance.

In undoing the edit, you also deleted listing of publications with verifiable citation counts on Google Scholar. These papers are more highly cited than some that were previously included on Wikipedia, and better represent my scholarly output.

Can you please give me a little leeway?

Thanks,

Robert M Anderson Robert M Anderson (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

To be quite blunt, you should avoid editing any article which is about you, an organization you are part of, or anyone or anything you represent. Wikipedia takes conflicts of interest very seriously, because it is difficult for editors with a conflict of interest to make neutral, well-sourced edits. If there is something in that article you object to, or something you want to improve, please make a request at Edit requests, where a neutral, uninvolved editor will review your request and make the changes if they are determined to be neutral and encyclopedic. —Darkwind (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Subway

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Regarding your revert here. The legal definition of restaurant; http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/restaurant/. Not that it matters, the IP editor you reverted is most likely trolling. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Culture of Bristol

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Not a content dispute - vandalism pure and simple. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hardly. You've been a Wikipedian almost as long as I have, so you probably haven't read WP:VAND in a while. Please take a sec to read the first and third paragraphs of that policy, then take another look at this user's behavior. I don't see anything here that looks like an attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. To quote, "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."
The very fact that the two of us disagree on the definition of this user's behavior means that the report is not appropriate for AIV. AIV is kind of like the CSD of administrator reports -- it's only intended for cases that do not require any discussion or judgement calls. —Darkwind (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm able to spot a blatant lie more easily than you are. I don't much care whether you choose to term it vandalism, lying, or a hoax - but it is not a "content dispute", it is an attempt to compromise the articles by adding false (and, obviously, totally unsourced) material. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on whether these edits are vandalism or not, but after taking a closer look at the IP's editing pattern, I can easily justify blocking for disruptive editing (adding and removing his own material repeatedly, in addition to the reverts by others, easily qualifies as disruptive). Blocked for 48 hours. —Darkwind (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Vandalism, pure and simple. On Bristol too. This isn't just kids with an excess of enthusiasm for their own band or WP:MADEUP, this is a carefully fabricated hoax with invented quotes. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello sir, thank you for your spontaneous response (blocking IP : 121.242.29.88 within 5 minutes of reporting). Have a nice day. Raghusri (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Deer gun

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The correct term is DEAR pistol- DEnied ARea. Deer is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.254.204 (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

As I noted on the article's talk page, you'll need to cite a reliable source that says so. You can't go around changing Wikipedia articles just because you think someone is wrong on the Internet. Your changes have to be verifiable. —Darkwind (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Litany of Saints

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the Litany of Saints - the Saint named Catherine - refers to one of the four women doctors of the church - the correct Saint Catherine is Catherine of Siena NOT Catherine of Alexandria.

They are often confused - but as Catherine of Siena is my patron saint - I know she is the correct Catherine.

Wiki referenced her but had a link to the incorrect Catherine.

Can you please fix this link?

Many thanks24.44.134.188 (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

HELP!!!!

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello
I have a question regarding to create an article.
I have tried to create an article about TVBOGO website.
However, you guys keep delete my article about TVBOGO.
I see that you have concern about issue of Fails WP:WEBSITE). I do not understands fully after reading a WP:WEBSITE page.
I believe I support enough information about my article.
Would you please point out the problems and give me a right direction to adjust my article??May050505 (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

For clarity, it was not my concern about the article. Another Wikipedia editor had posted a deletion notice on the article 7 days before, and it was his concern that "TVBOGO" does not meet the standards set out in WP:WEBSITE. Since nobody objected to the deletion during the 7 day waiting period, as an administrator I deleted the article. We can restore the article if you wish, but it will probably be listed at articles for deletion for further discussion.
If you're having trouble picking out the important points on the WEBSITE page, try looking at the section labeled "Criteria". Specifically, a website should fit one or both of the criteria marked with bullet points in that section, to have an article on Wikipedia. If a particular website does not meet either of those criteria, and doesn't meet WP:GNG either, an article about that website is likely to be deleted. —Darkwind (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for nothing

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

[7] Not helpful.–Signalhead < T > 09:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

... Okay. Normally I'd just roll my eyes and move on, but this was so passive-aggressive that I just had to stop and WTF at you, and today I'm in the mood to be passive-aggressive back.
Have you read WP:BLOCK? Specifically, WP:BLOCK#NOTPUNITIVE and WP:BLOCK#PREVENTATIVE? No? Didn't think so. Let me paraphrase. Or better yet, quote directly: "Blocks should not be used: ... where there is no current conduct issue of concern", and "For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased ..."
Given that the user had only edited once in the past three days, and even that edit was 9 hours before your report, exactly what "current conduct issue of concern" was I supposed to respond to? Clearly, "the actions [had] since ceased." Furthermore, that IP has still not edited since your report, so a block would have prevented nothing.
Also given the editing history of this IP, the user might not even have noticed a block even if he does come back to vandalize again, because the usual first block for vandalism is 31 hours. If they don't come back for a week, the block would have expired by then anyway.
I guarantee you that no administrator who regularly handles AIV would have issued a block based on your report, so there's no point in getting upset over it. —Darkwind (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 
Hello, Darkwind. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

bass

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

hi, I'm not a vandal of the bass amp page. I am one of the principal contributors to this article. I think I created it, too. :)OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I know, that's why I undid the edit. —Darkwind (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks. I looked WAAAY back and although I was a very early contributor, and a major one, it was Lightcurrent who actually created it :)
Maybe I am getting a little out of control with the hidden notes!!

Karikkakom Devi Temple

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Darkwind, you deleted the talk of this page on 14 May. I don't know who deleted the article, since article is recreated. Can you please let me know the circumstances of the deletion of this notable temple article. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The article was deleted via the PROD process. The editor who proposed the deletion was Theonesean (t c), whose reason for suggesting the deletion was: "No internal links, no citations, reads like a bad translation, not neutral. Need I go on?"
Because nobody objected to the deletion (i.e. nobody removed the deletion tag on the article) within 7 days of it being added, the article was eligible for deletion, and I did so.
The article has now been re-created, and I have no objection to this, seeing as how I was only processing the deletion another editor had proposed. However, please be aware that the same editor (or any other) may list the article at AfD at any time. —Darkwind (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to weigh in here - I took a look at the new version of the article, and it's really good. If I was a little curt in submitting it for deletion, I apologize. However, I seem to have been proven wrong with the new version. Thank you. TheOneSean [ U | T | C ] 16:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

April TV season AFD

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

I see that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All in the Family (season 1). This deletion also included subsequent seasons. This is one of the most notable American television shows in history. To get an understanding of the potential encyclopeidic content for each season, see All_in_the_Family#Awards. Practically every season of the show is well known as one that is notable and that should have encyclopedic content that make them notable as individual seasons.

  1. {{TopUSTVShows}} needs individual articles for All in the Family (season 2), All in the Family (season 3), All in the Family (season 4), All in the Family (season 5), and All in the Family (season 6).
  2. {{EmmyAward ComedySeries 1952–1975}} needs All in the Family (season 1), All in the Family (season 2), and All in the Family (season 3)
  3. {{EmmyAward ComedySeries 1976–2000}} needs All in the Family (season 8)
  4. {{GoldenGlobeTVComedy 1969–1989}} needs All in the Family (season 1), All in the Family (season 2), All in the Family (season 3), All in the Family (season 4), All in the Family (season 7), and All in the Family (season 8).

The comments at the AFD were 2 in favor of keeping and 2 in favor of merging back. Your states reason included the following summary " there is no content in these articles that was not in the original source. No prejudice against a proper WP:SPLIT that actually expands upon the original content". Merely adding these templates clarifies that these seasons present individually notable content. Would you consider reversing your decision so that I can augment the templates with the appropriate linkages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! I fully recognize the importance of the show itself to American TV history, and the AFD did not make any determination on the notability of the individual seasons.
What the AFD determined is that, as they stood at that time, the individual articles were purely duplicates of the longer episode list article, containing no content that justified their separation into individual articles. Even if those seasons are notable individually, there was no justification for keeping the duplicate content, and no new content to save. Your comment, "Practically every season of the show is well known as one that is notable and that should have encyclopedic content that make them notable as individual seasons," is probably true, but the deleted versions of the article contained no such content.
Also, please remember the !vote counts don't matter as much as the strength of each argument: one keep argument was "we need the space to improve the article", which has no weight as no improvement had been done; the other was a spurious reference to WP:AVOID. The merge !votes implied (but did not state) that the individual articles were not worth keeping as-is -- but there was no content to merge back, making them de facto 'delete' !votes. This means the general consensus was to concur with the nominator's argument, which is why I deleted the group of articles.
If you would like to re-split the master episode list, add content establishing the notability of each season separately, and make them useful as individual season articles, please feel free to do so. If you would like to start from the deleted version(s), I'd be happy to userfy them for you (of course please remember they would qualify for CSD G4 if moved to article space, unless you've added new meaningful content). As for the deleted versions, however, I stand by my determination of the consensus in that particular AFD -- those versions of the articles should not be kept because they duplicate the master episode list.
Also, a comment about the templates: not every multi-season show in those templates has an individual article for each season, the notable examples being Golden Girls, Murphy Brown, and Cheers. I don't think it harms the quality of the template to only link to the show itself in lieu of an appropriate season article. —Darkwind (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not judging your close. What I am saying is that I would like to expand the content solely by adding the important templates as noted above. This gives each season an encyclopedic contribution that the full list can not make by giving interested parties a chance to quickly peruse the contents of an acclaimed season and link to other acclaimed shows and seasons. Admittedly, many high profile seasons continue to be without articles yet. However, we are making great progress in this regard (see details at WT:TV). The seasons that augment these templates serve a valuable on WP. I am hoping that you would permit me to just add the templates and link the season accordingly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Upon further thought, I am willing to copy the relevant content from All_in_the_Family#Awards into each season article. Thus each season would be a combination of the general article and the episode list plus the appropriate templates from above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that would be sufficient material to differentiate the seasons. I'll go ahead and restore the articles. —Darkwind (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Are they in userspace somewhere.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
No, I just forgot to do it. Said I would, then promptly forgot.   Done —Darkwind (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I think they are now passable. Can your remove the AFD tags as a sign of approval.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  Done —Darkwind (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Great. I may do a bit more on the awards in time. But we are done for now. No longer watching.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Willoughton

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi. I see that you blocked a vandal adding stuff to Willoughton. The vandalism carries on from the original culprit User talk:BenClubley, and its getting a bit more than a joke now. I think the user you blocked might be a sock of BenClubley, who again appears to be an account only set up for vandalism. Could you keep an eye on what is going on here please ? Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Gogo Dodo has sorted this out and blocked - but I bet this one's back with another account. Acabashi (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

GOCE May drive wrap-up

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Guild of Copy Editors May 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
 

We have completed our May backlog elimination drive.

The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the June blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Justified (album)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Justified (album) has also been the victim of the IP editing The 20/20 Experience.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject AFC needs your help... again

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive
 

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.

Delivered at 13:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

GOCE June/July 2013 events

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
 

We have completed our June blitz and are about to commence our July backlog elimination drive.

The June/July 2013 events newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the July drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Need your help

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can you please solve this problem? Thanks! MarcosPassos (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Replied on the article talk page. —Darkwind (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Need guidance re apparent vendetta

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I created the entry for Matt Harrigan after Kevin Poulsen credited him as a key figure in the evolution of the computer security industry. My article was extraordinarily well-sourced, if I say so myself. After I created it, another editor left a note (still on my talk page) remarking how nice it was to see editors who "get" sourcing. It wasn't hard; Harrigan was on the cover of Forbes ASAP, he was in that book, recent pieces covered his DARPA work, etc.

The page was flagged for deletion by a user created solely for the purpose of deleting the wikipedia entry for Matt Harrigan (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JDMaryman). The way this was done was by systematically deleting all of my well-sourced sentences and leaving only a single, unsourced sentence for the whole entry, then flagging for deletion. The AfD debate included one editor who looked at the reverted changes and voted to Keep, and a series of unsigned-in comments from a variety of IP addresses corresponding to public wifi IPs in Los Angeles.

After the unwarranted deletions were reverted, they were swiftly killed again. So it looks like this is a committed vendetta. I'm not really equipped to go toe-to-toe with someone who will drive around to different Starbucks just to get different IPs for his/her sockpuppets. This is the first time I've run into this situation (I've been here since 2005 but I've only created 3 or 4 articles), so I don't really know what to do.

Cheers, Mtiffany (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the article itself, I would be happy to restore the last reasonably-sourced version in your userspace so you can modify and address the concerns that were raised in the AfD. Specifically, notability was the overriding concern -- none of the sources cited are "significant coverage" within the context of WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.
The sources prove that Mr. Harrigan exists, and that he was the CEO of MCR, but none of that is sufficient to establish notability. He's not a central figure in Poulsen's book (as far as I can tell with the limited resources of Amazon/Google page views), and most of the other sources are just quotes from him about other events. Even the Forbes article -- I even tracked down a copy on EBSCOhost -- isn't in-depth coverage. It's not ABOUT Harrigan. The gold standard for a source that establishes notability is some kind of news article, book, academic paper, etc. that discusses the person directly, and ideally explains their contribution to their field (i.e. why they are notable).
However, if you want, I'll get you a copy of the article and you're welcome to see if you can provide additional sources for notability purposes.
As to the changes to the article, if that editor returns to make changes and you believe there's sockpuppetry, you can report it to WP:SPI, and if you just feel he's edit warring at you, you can report him to WP:ANEW. Alternatively, you can always get an individual admin's attention, like myself, but usually you'll get a faster response on the noticeboards. —Darkwind (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like a plan. What prompted me to create the article in the first place was Poulsen's book. It's not about Harrigan, but it establishes Harrigan as a foundational figure in my field (computer security), as his company was the first to offer consulting hackers in a way that is now commonplace in the industry. It's that foundational role that was the thrust of my own judgment of notability. I don't know of any other historical treatment of the early days of the field from a commercial perspective. Though I must say that the mere fact of his being on the cover, along with some of the other early leaders in the security field, of a Forbes imprint, not just in a story in it, was also pretty notability-establishing in my mind, quite apart from the depth of the article's coverage. I'm not entirely sure where to take it from here, but I'd rather give it a shot than have my work go to waste. Mtiffany (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Feedback Request

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, I got your name from this list.

Would you please get involved in the article Hog-dog rodeo. As you can read at the following links, Link1 Link2 Hog-Dog Fighting, Hog-Baiting, Hog-Dog Rodeos, Hog dogging, hawg dawgin and hog dog "rodeos" are synonyms for the exact same activity. This article should be moved to "Hog-baiting", so it is inline with the naming convention of the other articles in its classification here. Wikipedia defines Dog baiting as follows:

"setting game dogs against a chained or confined animal for sport. The dogs bite, and tear to subdue the opposing animal by incapacitating or killing it. Baiting is a blood sport used for entertainment and gambling."

This definition fits for Hog-Dog Rodeo, Hog-baiting, Hog-Dawging, or whatever name or idiom you want to call it. It is all the same activity. Please see the two citations I provided above for third-party confirmation. Just because some parts of the world do not call it illegal, does not mean is not Hog-baiting. It is all the same activity, it might be marketed and packaged differently, but it is still the same and fits into the definition of Dog-baiting. Currently, one editor Chrisrus does not like the term "Hog-baiting" and keeps reverting the article, even though I have provided strong third-party citations, he seems to be exerting article ownership and is not displaying a NPOV.

You can read our conversation on the article talk page and see the reverts of the article for the edited changes.

Thank you IQ125 (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

GOCE July 2013 news report

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
 
  • Participation: Out of 30 people who have signed up for this drive so far, 18 have participated. If you have signed up for the drive but have not yet participated, it isn't too late. If you haven't signed up for the drive, sign up now!
 
  • Progress report: Thus far we have reduced the number of May/June 2012 articles to just 124 articles, so we're on the right track. Unfortunately, for the first time in GOCE history, the number of articles in the backlog has actually gone up during this drive. While all participants are currently doing a fine job, we just don't have as many of them as we have had in the past. We have over 500 editors on our mailing list, but only 18 editors who have done a copy edit for the drive. If you're receiving this newsletter, it's because you have an interest in copy editing. Join the drive! Even if you only copy edit one article, it helps. Imagine how much progress we could make if everyone chipped in just one article.

– Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor.

>>> Sign up now <<<

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

GOCE July 2013 copy edit drive wrap-up

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
 

We have completed our July backlog elimination drive.

The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor.

Sign up for the August blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox country

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox country. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

STiki emergency

GOCE Blitz wrap-up and September 2013 drive invitation

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Guild of Copy Editors August Blitz wrap-up
 

Participation: Out of sixteen people who signed up for this blitz, nine copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 26 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the September drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

Sign up for the September drive!
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Come Now Sleep

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I recreated the article per another users request because it is notable with my work.HotHat (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Italian dialects

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Italian dialects. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Southern Vectis

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I'm no longer very active on Wikipedia so sadly missed the AfD discussion on the Southern Vectis bus routes. I have now opened a discussion on Talk:Southern Vectis to address one or two particular points, and sadly I don't think the original discussion was properly informed. I realise Deletion Review may be the way to go on this, but as I have never gone to that and don't want to create unnecessary work for people, I would appreciate your input. If your advice is to go straight to Deletion Review then I will of course consider this. Peeky44 What's on your mind? 14:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

--Charlescorm (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)== Corm Capital SPEEDY Deletion ==

Dear Darkwind (!),

This page is not unambiguously promotional and definitely does not deserve deletion! The page was NOT created by Corm Capital! That said, reading it and now that it has been created, its purpose is not about promoting Corm Capital but giving a different perspective on the company. Corm Capital is a company with over 1 billion USD in private funds and extremely well established in the Middle East and North Africa region (MENA). Furthermore, S&P/Bloomberg conducted in-depth research on the company, its subsidiaries and senior management before including it in its ultra-selective S&P Capital IQ database (public link available at http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapid=238637949). And the list goes on and on...

Bottom line: Corm Capital is a company founded in 1998 with private funds over 1 billion USD and extremely well established in MENA. Having not created this page but having stumbled upon this deletion message, I strongly contest the deletion of this article on the grounds that Corm Capital DESERVES to have a Wikipedia page on it like so many other smaller, less interesting and less established companies that have one. If the content is the problem (I noticed that the description was a taken from our website), PLEASE allow my team some time to arrange it according to Wikipedia's guiding principles.

Also, please note that my grandfather's Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Corm) has been online for years and has been visited by thousands if not millions of people (my grandfather is in most offline encyclopedias). I personally guard his page when "incorrect" material is inserted in his Wikipedia page so I am well aware of Wikipedia's SPIRIT and GOVERNING PRINCIPLES.

Please trust my sincerity with regards to this deletion matter and please feel free to suggest steps you recommend I/Corm Capital take in order to avoid such an undeserved action (your warning page is impossible to understand!).

I have been a staunch supporter and promoter of Wikipedia for the last 10 years.

Once again, I urge you to remove your deletion of the Corm Capital page to give time to my team to write a "Wikepdia friendly" page.

Kind personal regards, Charles David Corm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlescorm (talk • contribs) 08:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I read the above when it was posted on the talk page of the article. Unfortunately, you are misunderstanding two main points which are relevant: first of all, this is an encyclopedia, and as such, any excessively promotional wording (please click that link and read the section about "Puffery") is not acceptable. Some specific problem phrases from the article included: "no-nonsense, 100% result driven innovative and flexible", "passionately active", "our company’s ever-growing portfolio". To put it bluntly, that is all meaningless, buzzword-filled PR drivel.
Secondly, that whole paragraph was copied from the company's LinkedIn profile, in clear violation of Wikipedia's policy on copyrighted material (please click that link and read the policy). That is unacceptable under Wikipedia policy and was enough to have the article deleted even if the wording had been OK for an encyclopedia.
If the company meets our notability criteria for companies and you can cite reliable, independent sources that verify it, there's no reason there can't be an article for Corm Capital -- but the one that was there was completely unacceptable. We cannot allow that kind of material to remain part of the encyclopedia, because Wikipedia content can be reused and redistributed at any time by anyone.
If you would like to write a reasonable article for Corm Capital, I suggest using the Articles for Creation process, where you can draft an article and have it approved by experienced Wikipedia editors without the risk of premature deletion. —Darkwind (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

--Charlescorm (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)== You had no right to delete this page without giving me time to correct it! ==

Dear Wikipedia (!),

This page is not unambiguously promotional and definitely does not deserve deletion! The page was NOT created by Corm Capital! That said, reading it and now that it has been created, its purpose is not about promoting Corm Capital but giving a different perspective on the company. Corm Capital is a company with over 1 billion USD in private funds and extremely well established in the Middle East and North Africa region (MENA). Furthermore, S&P/Bloomberg conducted in-depth research on the company, its subsidiaries and senior management before including it in its ultra-selective S&P Capital IQ database (public link available at http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapid=238637949). And the list goes on and on...

Bottom line: Corm Capital is a company founded in 1998 with private funds over 1 billion USD and extremely well established in MENA. Having not created this page but having stumbled upon this deletion message, I strongly contest the deletion of this article on the grounds that Corm Capital DESERVES to have a Wikipedia page on it like so many other smaller, less interesting and less established companies that have one. If the content is the problem (I noticed that the description was a taken from our website), PLEASE allow my team some time to arrange it according to Wikipedia's guiding principles.

Also, please note that my grandfather's Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Corm) has been online for years and has been visited by thousands if not millions of people (my grandfather is in most offline encyclopedias). I personally guard his page when "incorrect" material is inserted in his Wikipedia page so I am well aware of Wikipedia's SPIRIT and GOVERNING PRINCIPLES.

Please trust my sincerity with regards to this deletion matter and please feel free to suggest steps you recommend I/Corm Capital take in order to avoid such an undeserved action (your warning page is impossible to understand!).

I have been a staunch supporter and promoter of Wikipedia for the last 10 years.

Kind personal regards, Charles David Corm

First of all, please calm down. There is no need to repeat yourself. It takes time to write a reply to your detailed concerns. Secondly, yes, Wikipedia (as a community) has every right to set standards for what content is considered acceptable, and as a Wikipedia administrator, I enforce those policies when necessary. As I mentioned above, the content that was on the page was unacceptable for an encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia is. —Darkwind (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Thirdly, please "sign" your posts on talk pages (like this one) by typing —Darkwind (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC) after your content. This puts your username and the date & time at the end of your post, so that we can tell who wrote it and when. Thank you. —Darkwind (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

--Charlescorm (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)== Please restore my page so that I can correct it ==

Dear Wiki and Darkwind,

I just discovered this page and took notice of G11, G12 and G2.

Please let me correct the article AND/OR suggest a way of getting it back/undoing the deletion of a perfectly legitimate Wikipedia subject.

I cannot correct it now that it is deleted.

Regards, Charles Corm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlescorm (talk • contribs) 09:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Corm Capital Page

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

--Charlescorm (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Darkwind (where did you find this name? LOL!),

I apologize if I seemed NOT calm. I was just shocked at the speed of your deletion. You didn't even give me time to react.

All I am asking for is for you to undelete my page so I can correct the issues. I am familiar with Wikipedia and agree that the article posted (NOT by me or anyone I know) was not acceptable. I was in the process of correcting the page to Wiki requirements when you deleted it so fast, it made me wonder if you even took the time to skim though it.

Please restore the page, allow me to correct it and them decide on deletion or not.

Wiki is so great because it is built and managed by HUMAN BEINGS! Please don't turn into a Google robot! That would be a crime!--Charlescorm (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)--

Kind regards, Charles Corm

PLEASE HELP ME!

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

--Charlescorm (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)I did everything you told me to do regarding undeleting YOUR deletion of the Corm Capital article (including signing my posts!). Of course, YOU have all the right to delete it if it violates Wikipedia's guidelines. The fact is: you didn't even give me the time to correct the article to Wiki's guidelines which I am well aware of. You just swooped down (Darkwind!) and deleted the whole thing, erasing and losing my corrections and in the most UN-WIKIPEDIA manner and Gestapo worthy way! That, my friend, is not acceptable! You could have at least warned me or given me 30 minutes (!) to make the necessary corrections!

Anyway, after spending the day surfing Wikipedia, it specifies that I must take up the issue with the ADMIN who deleted my page. And that person is you M. Darthwind! Corm Capital is backed by dozens of reputable online authorities and I gave you a few (the S&P endorsement alone, the fruit of 3 months of research into my company and all its subsidiaries (!), should have been enough.

So for the last time, please undelete the page so that I can make the necessary corrections.

Again, PLEASE don't turn Wikipedia into Facebook! You are killing one of the rare pockets of online freedom remaining on the web.

You can email me anytime at charles@corm.com.

THANK YOU MIGHTY DARKWIND!

Charles Corm

Please understand that I am a volunteer, not a paid employee, and thus I only attend to Wikipedia matters when I have free time elsewhere. I've been quite busy today and have not had a chance to read your messages.
That being said, the previously existing version of the article is COMPLETELY UNSUITABLE. It's a clear case of blow it up and start over. Please use the Articles for Creation process (click that link!) to draft a new article for the company. You do not need to start the article in the "live" Wikipedia space. I will be happy to check back in a couple of hours to see if you need any help getting started with the AFC process. —Darkwind (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

--Charlescorm (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Dear Darkwind. I apologize for the frustration I expressed yesterday (it was a s* day for me too). I know that you are a volunteer and sincerely commend you for that. As I said, I consider Wikipedia the quintessential internet resource (thanks to people like you) and would hate to see it become the new Facebook (and hence support it financially on a regular basis). Anyway, I am up since 6 AM and have spent the last 4 hours editing a page that I believe fits all Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. Please have a look at the page when free and please let me know your thoughts and what to do from here. Warm regards and thank you for your kind help! Charles Corm.

--Charlescorm (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Darkwind. I waited all day for you to kindly review my page as you suggested above. My article is ready for submission but I wanted your input out of fear of having it Speedy Gonzalez deleted it again. Going to bed now. Please have a look and tell me what to do next. Submit or continue making changes. I have provided you with top notch refs as you requested. I hope to wake tomorrow to some good news. Thanks. Charles.

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mobile phones with WVGA display

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Are you sure about the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mobile phones with WVGA display (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which doesn't seem to address the second nomination, List of mobile phones with HD display (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (retaining the deletion template).? Even Makyen's keep, which was cited by others, states List of mobile phones with HD display is a high quality list that I find quite useful. I feel that it should be kept even if List of mobile phones with WVGA display is deleted.[8] Thanks for reading. -- Trevj (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I meant 'keep' for both, but I forgot to clean up the other list. (The afd-close script only does the primary nominated article.) Thanks for pointing it out. —Darkwind (talk) 08:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the swift reply. Yes, I suspected it was a scripting issue. I'm still not convinced that !votes to keep the main article are supported by policy, but there you go. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I merged an article you deleted

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Because I merged it, didn't deleting it break the licensing? Can you please undelete so the the licensing is not broken? I merged Kroger (Ponce de Leon Ave.) into Ponce de Leon Avenue. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Did you copy and paste the exact text from the original article, or did you rewrite it in your own words (paraphrasing etc.)? If you copied exact text, then yes, I would need to undelete the article, redirect it to the destination article, and add a template to the talk page. If you rewrote it in your own words, then there's no licensing concern as it is your own contribution. —Darkwind (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I copied and pasted the exact text. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 23:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I restored the article for licensing reasons, and added the appropriate templates to both talk pages -- there's nothing else you need to do. However, I see that someone already tried to split the content back out to a separate article (which I promptly deleted as G4), so you may want to keep an eye on the destination article. —Darkwind (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, if you do something like that in the future, it's a BIG help to the closing admin if you'd mention in the AfD discussion that you'd performed the merger -- when consensus is that clear, I often don't even look at the article in question since I have a script to do the actual deletion. Had I known you'd done the merger already, I wouldn't have deleted the page in the first place. Thanks. —Darkwind (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Gotcha, I thought about that, but I figured the closer would see the redirect. I was also disappointed by the quality of the discussion there. Weren't the delete votes exceedingly weak, considering that the article's content is now actually merged? What a waste of a "discussion", no? Yikes. I notice from the proposer's talk page they've stopped editing after receiving so much negative feedback about their AfD proposals. I'd hate to be a newbie around this place. It would be terribly frightening having to deal with people that don't listen and don't engage with your arguments. Feel free to ping me with the new notification feature instead of those old fashioned templates. ;-) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 00:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed the AfD mentioned at User talk:Candleabracadabra#FYI. User:Biosthmors, please do not merge articles while they are at AfD, per the fifth/last item under WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. Since Biosthmors was the only substantial contributor – others made minor edits (1, 2) and added categories or tags – WP:Merge and delete#Record authorship and delete history is a valid fix. Biosthmors's username is already present on the merging edit. If deletion is the true consensus, it is still possible to implement. Flatscan (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Flatscan. I'm interested in your opinions on the quality of the discussion and the issues I raise about editor retention. What do you think about those? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 06:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Biosthmors, I understand why you found the discussion unsatisfactory, as only Cullen328 engaged with you. The offline The Atlanta Journal-Constitution sources are a stumbling block. While WP:Offline sources dictates that they are just as good as online ones, offline sources are more difficult to verify and evaluate. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Flatscan! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive
 

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2500 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. --Mdann52talk to me!

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Eve de Leon Allen

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I wish to protest at the speedy deletion of this article, which appears to me to be a clear misuse of criterion A7, see Talk:Eve de Leon Allen. PatGallacher (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, simply appearing on television is not a credible claim of significance. Literally hundreds of thousands of people have appeared on television shows around the world. Ordinarily, I would suggest that you open a thread at WP:DRV if you believe that Green Cardamom (talk · contribs) and I misinterpreted A7, but I'll go ahead and undelete it and send it to AfD instead. —Darkwind (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Philip_Guarino

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Darkwind: Regarding your deleting of the Philip_Guarino page for "Copywrite" issues. I realize the top of your page tells us to go to "Deletion Review", but the "Deletion Review" section tells us to discuss it with you (the deleting Admin) first. So I will post this here first before taking it to "Deletion Review."

You stated the reason you speedy deleted my article was: The result was speedy delete. The notice at the top of the page at TheKnightsTemplar.org is not a sufficient release for Wikipedia purposes. The article can be recreated with sufficient references when/if Dr. B. Jones (t c) provides a valid license or release of rights. —Darkwind (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Five points that didn't exist when Stalwart111 first tagged my work for "Speedy Deletion", but existed before you deleted:

1) Besides the note on the top of the site saying clearly that it was my own work: 

"Notice to Wikipedia Editors: This history page is a work in progress as I’m verifying references.  I have been asked to write a history of Philip Guarino by  Grand Prior Mark Warren and this is my own work  -Dr. Jones"

2) And besides addressing this topic priory to your speedy deletion where I specifically gave permission for all my work to be used freely on Wikipedia.

3) There was and still is a copyleft notice on the bottom of the page saying: "Copyleft Free To Use License: The content of this website is free to use for your personal and commercial projects."

4) Since your comments indicate that you seemed to understand that the work on www.TheKnightsTemplar.org was my own and I was trying to give permission for it's use on Wikipedia, couldn't you have used your discretion as an Admin to instruct me how to give this permission instead of deleting?

5) You stated: The article can be recreated with sufficient references when/if Dr. B. Jones (t c) provides a valid license or release of rights. If I have not yet given sufficient permission, please tell me what more I can do and if I have, please undelete my article into my sandbox.


I did not save any of my work prior to your deleting it and I have lost 7 hours of hard work. I'm requesting that you please move my Philip_Guarino article to my sandbox where I can continue to add references and clean it up. Dr. B. Jones (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. At the time I deleted the article, the notice on www.thenightstemplar.org very clearly said "Copyright 2013" and "All Rights Reserved". You did have a statement clearly intending to give permission to use the text on Wikipedia, but due to a variety of concerns -- not least of which is that Wikipedia content is often reused by for-profit companies on other websites in a commercial manner -- we cannot accept a permission that just says or implies "OK for Wikipedia only" or "any non-commercial use". That's why I had to delete the article immediately. We cannot accept copyright-violating materials in the main article area, your user sandbox, the Articles for Creation or Article Incubator areas, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Administrators don't actually have the discretion to leave copyright violations posted anywhere on the site.
However, since you've changed the notice to say personal and commercial re-use of the content is OK, then we can accept that as sufficient to undelete the article. However, it's still undergoing a deletion discussion, for which I have restarted the 7-day discussion period. If at the end of the discussion, the Wikipedia community has decided to delete the article, the page can be moved to either your own sandbox or the Articles for Creation area for further work/drafting before posting it again as an article. —Darkwind (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
So, I wrote the above reply before I saw the conversation on your user talk page. I really don't appreciate that tone, especially when you had not given me any time to respond to your concerns here and explain the copyright policy to you. It looks like you could be a valuable part of the Wikipedia community - you are asking questions, explaining yourself clearly, willing to learn about policy and guidelines, etc., but you really need to assume good faith in your interactions with others. Your assumption that I was "hard nosed about it and used a sledge hammer to kill a gnat" was not correct, given that copyright policy required me to delete the article immediately, and in fact is a little offensive. Please take more care with your words and your assumptions in the future. —Darkwind (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Philip Guarino

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm supposed to add this to your page that I have posted it to the Deletion Review as you asked us to do in the note when we edit:

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Philip Guarino. 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. Dr. B. Jones (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Talkback

 
Hello, Darkwind. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Discoverer.
Message added 07:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You have a message here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aish.ego#October_2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.123.185 (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this page supposedly closed for Copyright violations?

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Here is is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CrossFit. I tried to understand what the problems were on the talk page, and didn't get a satisfactory response: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CrossFit.

Thank you for your consideration.--Functionalaesthete (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Functionalaesthete

I have addressed the issue. —Darkwind (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Reopen an AfD?

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'd like to formally request that you re-open the AfD for Devil Shit. I think that closing it almost immediately after it was re-listed was a little premature and I think it'd benefit from a proper relisting. I'll bring it up on the AfD talk page as well, as I'm not sure if you can re-open it yourself or not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Whoops- for some reason thought it was only up for 8 days instead of about 2 weeks. I'll just create a new AfD discussion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
No worries. —Darkwind (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

OTRS ticket in Thai

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. I have translated the letter you requested at th:วิกิพีเดีย:สถานทูตวิกิมีเดีย#OTRS_ticket_in_Thai. Please take a look at it. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkwind/Archive_6&oldid=1168300580"