User talk:R'n'B/Archive 7

Copyright concerns

I did add 4/3 Battalion to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Somebody blanked the page earlier today. I've restored the earlier content and combined it with the more recent entries. Thanks for the tip-off. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Arrggghhhh!!!!!

This edit made Baby Jesus cry. This editting set things right. —SlamDiego_←T 23:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

dab templates

Couple more in notes at MediaWiki_talk:Disambiguationspage#Still_missing. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm just wondering if {{POWdis}} (Place of Worship - currently transcluded in 14 pages) should be redirected to {{Church disambig}} (currently used in ~170 pages), instead of the plain disambig template? Or perhaps just migrating&deleting would be cleaner...? (every time I read it I think "prisoner of war"!)

The old TfD wasn't very helpful (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 8#Template:POWdis). -- Quiddity (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point in most of the topic-specific disambig templates, frankly. However, your suggestion is a good one; why not just be bold and re-target the redirect? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. (I figured I'd bounce it off you, as you're as caught up in their state as anyone right now, plus an admin is needed to update the Mediawiki list.) Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Category renaming

I know, I've left a notice for Kbdank to run his bot and fix the categories. However, he claims this isn't speediable, so I'm reverting the redirects. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 13:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

List of World War I flying aces

I am manually disambiguating this list. My usual tactic is to alter simple name listings like /Theodor Rumpel/ to /Theodor Rumpel (aviator)|Theodor Rumpel/ (slash marks replace brackets in this talk page example). In a few cases, I may add some other identifier in place of "aviator", such as "RAF officer", to agree with another article.

At any rate, if I am interfering with your disambiguation effort, we ought to coordinate.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You are not interfering with anything I am doing, but I do recommend you review WP:NC, WP:NAMEPEOPLE, and WP:PRECISION before you proceed any further. In short, don't "disambiguate" a title that isn't actually ambiguous; if there isn't any other "Theodore Rumpel" who is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then that's the ideal title for the article about the aviator. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Gladiatus

I am not a particularly frequent wikipedia user; however, I have noted that you are the latest of several individuals to delete the game page for the game Gladiatus.

I read the archived article of the game, and I must disagree with the opinions that it entirely reads like an advertisement for the game. This game, worldwide, has over 50,000 patrons, on various servers (Gladiatus.com, Gladiatus.de, Gladiatus.us, et cetera). It may not be relevent to you, but this continued deletion actually comes across like corporate sabotage.

The subjective, rather than objective, material could easily be amended/deleted by someone less familiar with the game; why not simply do this, rather than continue to delete the entire article? I believe that it is a disservice to wikipedia users, and a rather snotty one at that, to refuse to allow an article pertaining to a game that so many patronize simply because it is not written in the correctly eloquent fashion that is apparently required.

This is just my opinion...but I feel that if wikipedia has now "progressed" to a point where individuals examine pages with a microscope, attempting to find subjective material so that articles can be brought down, that the "wikipedia project" can now be officially entitled a failure. But I'm just an individual, and that opinion is subjective; so I'm sure it counts for little in this venue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.228.109 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If you were able to find that I deleted the article, then you should also have been able to read my reason for deleting it, which was that there had been a community consensus in a past discussion to delete it. I was not expressing my own opinion about the topic. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, reasons such as:

"Speedy Delete -- CSD-A7. It doesn't even assert notability, let alone cite any reliable sources to back it up. --Haemo 08:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Speedy delete as A7. No sources, authors can't be bothered to fix this problem, no real debate necessary. --Dhartung | Talk 08:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Delete. A lot of ghits, but that could be expected for a web game. I can't find any reliable sources for it.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)"

The "community discussion" consisted almost entirely of a small handful of people who had no interest or experience with the game whatsoever, but only in scrutinizing the format of pages to see if they meet "proper criteria". The user trying to defend the pages notability was very quickly shot down in numerous intellectual manners. How does such selectivity benefit the average wikipedia user in any way? Again, I don't doubt that you acted "properly", but can you honestly not see how overly-intellectualized these actions are making Wikipedia? A game with a patronage of over 50K users is not acceptable to have a page, until such time as an individual comes along to write it that is properly schooled in the etiquette of wikipedia article creation. Oh, come on...come back down to the rest of humanity, guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.228.109 (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Weldon Angelos Case

Hi Russ! Yes, I'm trying out a new section 'doubts in the case' admittedly without much to go on.I'm the original author of the article, and people have done a great job of fixing up my incompetent attempts.

I'm trying to find NPOV about the issue of how the jury didn't know they are sentencing a guy to life. It is a new question. I am not involved in the case, I'm just trying to get an article up and running about it.

My thinking has to do with reasonable doubt. If they thought "Yeah he probably had a gun, it doesn't matter, let's vote yes" then the judge should have had some discretion.

In other words that the concept of 'reasonable doubt' might be related to the necessity of judicial discretion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.167.228 (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If the "doubts" about the case can be attributed to a reliable source, then it would be appropriate to include them in the article with a citation. As it is, it just looked like these were your personal opinions about why the verdict was wrong. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for your answer. I understand and agree!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.134.131 (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 

Deprecated templates

Ups, sorry, I didn't know that a template deletion request had to pass trough such process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Locos epraix (talk • contribs) 20:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You have letterbombs mail!

Hi all loving adminsitrator Russ, I just wrote you a exquisite reply to your recent message, please drop by and check it out when you have the time. Cheerio!   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem at Omid (satellite)

The edits made to Omid (satellite) have led to a circular redirect. All the information about this satellite has disappeared. Please fix. Interlingua 16:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been fixed. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I fixed it. We both had the same idea apparently, Russ, and I deleted the page you just had moved by accident (because we both did it at exactly the same time). Funny thing though that the software does not notify you when the page was moved while you had the move window open. SoWhy 17:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

William, Count of Melun

Curious of what was the reason for the removal of the category Biography by Russbot? The article while a stub, is a biography. The same thing happened to several other recent articles I am working on. John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I should have written removed by "HotCat". John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

See the note at the top of Category:Biography. R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand how one category can be convulted with another. Different, but understandable. Thanks for the heads up!

John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't delete this

Category:States and territories established in 04 BC while I'm still working on the template that currently links to it. It's not an implausible typo at this point because a template links to it. This will eventually be fixed, and when it is I will delete the category. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Eric Jurecic

I'm curios the reason why my article about Isaiah Stone was deleted twice. He is on his way to doing big things, and he is one of the best athletes to ever graduate form Orchard View. It just seems kind of unfair that he isn't getting enough recognition. I'm not sure if it is because the page wasn't full of enough information or what. Please write back as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovballerzeke (talk • contribs) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability. It's not enough for you to say that he's a great athlete; there has to be an independent reliable source that says it. And who the heck is Eric? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

DAB challenge

Heya, if you're interested, I made this page that updates every month. --JaGa^talk 20:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Adserverbeans

Please do not delete the article about Adserverbeans, it is an article about software and doesn't comply with A7: "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on." The software is available at SourceForge.net Consider deleting OpenX for example. Technically there is no difference between these products except popularity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitaly.Sazanovich (talk • contribs) 10:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Why Is Jefferson's Tree of Liberty Talk Page Deleted

Why did you delete thisWP:ALBUM page (Talk:Jefferson's Tree of Liberty)? There were important questions on that page still, and of course the album quality etc. always goes on the discussion page. I see no reason for this deletion, and I don't believe it was a re-direct to another talk page (unless that talk page has eluded me?) What's going on here? Did the old page get deleted in another re-direct? JoeD80 (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have deleted the wrong page by mistake. I have restored the old version and its history. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's cool. I got confused and thought maybe someone else had changed the page before the deletion. Thanks for fixing it! JoeD80 (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

salirophilia

I dont remember what the situation was back then, but my guess is that I had used copy and paste because there was a pre-existing page called Salirophilia, which had an edit history of its own, and therefore I couldn't use the Move function. At the time I probably didn't consider the page history important enough to bother an admin to do the page move manually. As you said, usually it is preferable to preserve the longer page history but I think I thought of what I was doing at the time as more of a spelling fix than a move. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

26 Squadron SAAF

Hi, I see you deleted this page on the basis that it is a copyright infringement. It was deleted within hours of being created and as a 'newbie' on Wiki I hadn't yet come to grips with all the procedures including those pertaining to copyright. I am the author/creator/owner of the website concerned and the material therein. It would be appreciated if you would undelete the page so that I can sort this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desaxe (talk • contribs) 13:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not really clear on why you need the page undeleted since you already have access to all the text that was used on it; you could just create a new article. Further, if you are indeed the copyright holder, you still need to follow the process on Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials so that we can be assured that the material is released to us under a compatible license. If you still think the page needs to be undeleted, please reply and I will take a second look. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• I do have all the source, but I edited some of the text while I was putting it on Wiki. Don't worry to undelete the page though, I've just re-created it as a stub; it's far less hassle! If, however, you doubt my connection to the website take a look at the 26 Squadron Messages or Contacts pages. Desaxe (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

protect a page?

Hi.

We keep getting our page vandalized. Is it possible to protect the entire page?

Thanks. Lillian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilcontreras (talk • contribs) 01:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible, but it is not easy. You would have to place your request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. The admins generally allow protection only in fairly extreme cases. I don't mean to discourage you from asking, though, as long as you don't get your hopes up excessively. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hospital Corpsman title change

Negative pal, you have the wrong man! Didn't attempt to do anything whatsoever in title changing, not sure what you mean. I don't even know how to change a title name, nor know where to begin...I just add information and sources, and create new fresh pages that I know for a fact hasn't been created before. Hope you locate the culprit, good luck!
RekonDog (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh..didn't know it was a title change...I was editing another article and noticed it was "red", and spelling was right, and so I thought it was an empty page to create a redirect...sorry for the trouble! Like I said, I had no intentions of changing title, unless it was by accident; thanks for clarifying the issue...I wondered how I got spotlighted! God Speed!
RekonDog (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Kari Ferrell: Hipster Grifter

Hello, I was wondering why the Kari Ferrell article was deleted. Also, once a page is deleted is it possible to see the history of the page? Thanks! Faethon Ghost (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the article, at the request of User:MuffledThud, under speedy deletion criterion A7 -- it was an article about a real person that did not assert that the person was in any way notable. The actual text of the article just stated that the person is a suspected felon; there are, of course, thousands (if not tens of thousands) of such people at large at any given time, so just being a member of that class does not make someone individually notable. See the notability guidelines for more information.

As for your second question, administrators can view the history of deleted pages, but other users cannot. If you have a need for access to this, I could restore the page and move it to a subpage under your User: page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes if you could restore it and move it to a subpage under my User: page that would be great and much appreciated. Can you also point me to the discussion of the request for deletion if there is one? Thanks again! Faethon Ghost (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It is now at User:Faethon Ghost/Kari Ferrell. I undid the deletion request (so that it won't be listed as a deletion candidate), but you can see that in the page history. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you had deleted this article at the request of User:MuffledThud (a user who has since indicated they have quit Wikipedia) on the grounds of speedy deletion criterion A7. I have recreated this article with the assertion of notability in the content and references. --Oakshade (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page redirects

Russ, I was dipping a toe into your fantastic talk page redirects project today, and an admin declined one of my speedy deletion tags with an explanation that was a legitimate smack myself upside the head moment.

The situation matched the first case from the Article page is not a redirect section, where [[Talk:Article 1]] is a redirect to [[Talk:Article 2]], but [[Article 1]] is not a redirect and [[Article 2]] is about a different subject. Rather than deleting [[Talk:Article 1]], or tagging it for a G6 speedy deletion if you're not an administrator, why not just edit out the redirect and leave a blank page behind at [[Talk:Article 1]]? A blank article page is bad, but a blank talk page never really hurt anyone, did it?

Just curious about your thoughts. Best, Mlaffs (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess a blank talk page doesn't hurt anyone. Neither does deleting it.  :-) R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

RussBot - Dog Fancy

Hi there. I moved the article Dog Fancy to Dog Fancy (magazine), with Dog Fancy redirecting to Animal fancy; per Cat Fancy (and Cat Fancy (magazine)).

I noticed that #132 of User:RussBot/Similar titles report/6 refers to Dog Fancy. I don't know what the bot does in that respect, but I figure I might as well let you know in case it requires tweaking to accommodate the move. Thanks, -M.Nelson (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Page titles

Hi, R'n'B. Thanks for your note and for redoing by undoing what i did (!). I am aware of the protocols, undesirable history consequences, etc. of moving. However, in this case none of these consequences were in fact relevant since the Wolverine (animal) was superfluous and there was residual parallel Talk/History confusion from the moves that User: Journalist had performed earlier on the article. I.e., clicking on the history of Wolverine (disambiguation), which had been renamed Wolverine, led to the history of Wolverine (animal) ... if that makes any sense. In any case, it looks like order has been restored. I left a message on Journalist's page explaining the rationale for undoing his moves in detail here [1]. Thanks again, Eliezg (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I must point out, however, that the undesirable history consequences were in fact relevant here, because your actions created a new "Wolverine" article for which all the history would have been in the history of "Wolverine (animal)", a redirect page, while the history of the "Wolverine" page would have shown the past versions of the "Wolverine (disambiguation)" page. (I put these in quotes, not in brackets, because these titles are no longer valid since the moves I made earlier.) This is undesirable and could be avoided simply by moving the old pages to the desired titles as I did. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

So confusing! But i think I got it, thanks. Never again! Eliezg (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted article

Uh, wow, this is complicated stuff to negotiate, for the debutante anyway.

I'm trying to find out why the title "Tony stowers" was deleted. you question "the importance of the person" in something noted A7.

What is your defitnion of this? Because a person gets themselves "famous" they merit a place in the wikipedia? So what's your definiton of "success" then? do they have to be "famous" or appear in a hollywood movie or get their face on the BBC to be recognised as such? Tony's one of the few people I know to fight against that nonsense. this guy deserves a mention, even if onyl a small one, believe me he gave me my first break. I took the quotes from him direct! so maybe you can take me through a step-by-step guide as to what I can credit him with?

86.72.187.200 (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I do understand that getting started as a Wikipedia editor can be daunting. We have a lot of policies and guidelines here; even after four or five years, I still come across ones that I am not familiar with.
• Here are links to a few pages that may help you get started. I think the first one, on the "five pillars," is especially useful in understanding the basics about what Wikipedia is about.
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia
  • Tutorial
  • How to edit a page
  • How to write a great article
  • Manual of Style
• Now, as for the particular article in question, you may want to take a look at the notability guidelines for biographical articles. "Notability" doesn't mean the same thing as fame or celebrity, but it does mean that the person must have done something that received attention in other published sources. The key thing (which goes back to the "five pillars" article again) is that Wikipedia is not a source of original information, it is a compilation of information published elsewhere. So, although you might have thought that getting quotations directly from the subject of the article would make it more valuable, it actually goes against what we are trying to achieve in this encyclopedia.
• The Tony stowers article was nominated for deletion by User:Occuli because the text did not indicate that the subject of the article had received any attention or notice in reliable, independently published sources; in fact, no sources at all were cited. Now, that doesn't mean that he is not in fact notable, it just means that we were provided no evidence of it. If there are published sources concerning his work, it is entirely possible that a new article that relies upon and cites those publications could be added to Wikipedia.
• I should mention one other thing. One of the "five pillars" is the neutral point of view. I notice that the user who contributed the Tony stowers article, User:Frenchresistance, wrote in the edit summary, "I've added a couple of pages about myself and my work." (emphasis added) This suggests to me that User:Frenchresistance is Tony Stowers, and, since you used the first person in your message to me above (despite your apparently deliberate attempt to suggest that you are not Mr. Stowers), I assume that you are User:Frenchresistance. Needless to say, it is rather difficult for anyone to maintain a "neutral point of view" about themselves, and for that reason Wikipedia strongly discourages users from writing their own biographical articles. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Major Lazer

The articles states that "Major Lazer is a Jamaican commando who lost his arm in the secret Zombie War of 1984. The US military rescued him and repurposed experimental lazers as prosthetic limbs. Since then Major Lazer has been a hired renegade soldier for a rogue government operating in secrecy underneath the watch of M5 and the CIA." and "His true mission is to protect the world from the dark forces of evil that live just under the surface of a civilized society. He fights vampires and various monsters, parties hard, and has a rocket powered skateboard." If you like you could also qualify this as a blatant hoax, but I would rather think that this is an attack. Passportguy (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I know, I read the whole article. :-( However, it seemed plausible to me that this is describing a fictional character created to promote a music project, sort of like the Gorillaz. It isn't necessarily either an attack page or a hoax. All I can say is that I take the speedy deletion criteria very seriously, and I find myself not infrequently declining requests to speedy delete articles that I would happily vote to delete on AfD -- like this one. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Deaning

The problem of deaning is very bad in our country of wales.

I have created a page to highlight the problem.

Stop taking authetic pages down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdisson (talk • contribs) 14:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

I apologise, no, I didn't notice that bit- I saw the conversation on the talk page. However, I'm inclined to agree that the New York Times aren't likely to be best pleased on finding their articles copied and pasted onto Wikipedia so I put the tag back on- I'm not an admin, I'm just loitering at CAT:SD. Regards, HJMitchell You rang? 12:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you speedied it in the end. Nice work- good call. If a situation like that arises in future, just obliterate it- you needn't worry about respecting my decision, though I'd appreciate a courtesy note. Oh, and on a technicality, since I'm not an admin, would I be incorrect in using the term "declining" a speedy? So far I've avoided using the term. Kind regards, HJMitchell You rang? 22:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Mariah Carey

I still think it should be deleted as fast as possible. The information is blatantly incorrect, and could be harmful if the press or something gets hold of it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

could use a hand

How can I get RussBot to go through my contribs? I've tagged a bunch of BLP entries as "Living People", and would like to have the bot go through and convert to "Living people" (notice case change). Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank You. — Ched :  ?  12:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Already happening. The magic is in the {{catredirect}} template at Category:Living People. Amalthea 12:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Amalthea, and my apologies to the community for the extra work I've caused. — Ched :  ?  13:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No extra work caused (for a human), happened automagically. :) Amalthea 15:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Multi

Hi - just wondering about this one - it was clearly a double post when created, and so rather than prod both I redirected the second post to the first and proded the first. I see now that you are saying the other one now needs an additional 5 day prod?[2]. Should both have been proded from the begining?    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   12:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hi. I'm not sure whether what I did was really necessary, but I wanted to be as cautious as possible. From the page history, it wasn't clear to me whether there was a duplicate article or not; after reviewing the logs in more detail, I now see that there was. I probably could have gone ahead and deleted the redirect, but there's no harm in letting the Prod period run out. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

{{Coca-Cola brands}}

I did, the links weren't valid. As I stated to Andy, I checked the links on the Coca-Cola brands list page and verified the links by clicking through; afterwords I did a search of the terms on a good deal of the redlinks with no articles to be found. Allot of the added brands were foreign, non-English brands with no corresponding eqivalents in the English WP. Additionally, I created half of dozen articles and stubs to match their redlinks, yet more just kept appearing. Their "hard" work wasn't so hard, more like half baked. --Jeremy (blah blah) 19:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The part of my message that you didn't catch is that, instead of simply removing the links you didn't want, you reverted the entire page to an earlier version that contained many links to disambiguation pages that contained no information whatsoever about any Coca-Cola brands. If you had just removed the problem links instead of reverting to an earlier, equally invalid version, I would not have commented. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that they are still links to nowhere. While cleaned up the redlinks, the now-blue links are still null as they don't go where they need to. The better place to start would be to check the list of Coca-Cola brands, create the article for one of the unlinked brands and add the link to the template and disambig page. --Jeremy (blah blah) 03:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

File:SteinbeckStamp.JPG

Hi Russ (can I call you Russ?)
I notice you deleted File:SteinbeckStamp.JPG as an F9 copyvio. It had however a fair use rationale, and I'm not even sure if it was an invalid rationale since it wasn't purely used for illustration of the topic. Can you restore it and, if necessary, tag it with {{subst:dfu}} instead if necessary?
Thanks, Amalthea 10:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Sorry for the inconvenience. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Amalthea 11:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems with File:Gael Givet.jpg

Hello Russ, you highlighted this picture for deletion for copywright reasons. However as i explained in the picture description. It is available in the Public Domain as per Wiki's rules? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoverTheBendInSussex (talk • contribs) 22:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I didn't nominate the picture for deletion. I was patrolling Category:Copyright violations for speedy deletion and saw this along with a few other pictures you had uploaded, but I saw that the nominator hadn't notified you. Be that as it may, I think you may have a misunderstanding of what "public domain" means in copyright law -- it means works that are not subject to any copyright at all; something copied from a football club's website almost certainly is not going to meet that description. See WP:Image use policy for more information. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[File:Joannamostov.png]

I'm not seeing why you declined the speedy. It has no copyright or licensing information indicating it can be used. Additionally, title is attempt to circumvent an OTRS, and sneak in alleged birthname.Horrorshowj (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The nomination did not identify a source of the picture and I have no way of determining that it is "unambiguously" a copyright violation. There are other image tags you can use for missing license information. And, the title of the image was not identified as a reason for the nomination. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guitarists/Buckethead task force

The user who tagged all these things User:HexaChord has got fed up and tagged everything he has worked on for deletion. I suggest that you preserve it to avoid leaving a mess! Should we raise it at WP:ANI? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, he was the only person who contributed to any of those pages, so under the WP:CSD criteria he was entitled to delete them. But, if you are indicating that you or someone else wants to continue the task force and use those pages, then I will be happy to restore them. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Really I was just asking you not to delete. Quite a few had other contributors too. User:HexaChord has had a lot of stress over fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hard Drive Redirect

Why did you undo my two changes here and here? I deliberately did it that way so as to eliminate the redirect tag from the Hard Disk Drive article given that Hard drive started as a redirect, no ambiguity, but then became ambiguous with the other two meanings being added. I still would like to see the redirect tag off the hard disk drive, do you have any suggestions? For example, I could rewrite the disambiguation page to not make the Hard disk drive the preferred meaning. BTW, its not nice to just revert without at least saying why :-) Tom94022 (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I did say why, in the edit summary: "clearly the primary topic". (You didn't say why when you reverted User:TheDJ's change to the same page a day earlier....) When Wikipedia readers search for "hard drive", it seems highly likely that the vast majority of them are looking for information about hard disk drives. Yes, the term is potentially ambiguous, but the guidelines I linked to make it clear that when one usage is clearly the most common, the ambiguous term should be the title of that article (or, as here, redirect to it). Further, as a practical matter, there are 527 existing Wikipedia articles that link to hard drive, whose authors presumably intended to refer to the disk drive because that title redirected to the disk drive article at the time they created those links. If you want to change the redirect, I think it should at least be discussed first to see if there is a consensus to do so, since it will require edits to those hundreds of other pages if it is changed. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguator userbox

Greetings, I created a userbox that you may want to display:

This user is in the Disambiguator Hall of Fame.

J04n(talk page) 14:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will wear it with pride. (You might note that most other user boxes use a smaller font.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Your input

Hey Russ. You may be interested in this. I'm pretty sure WP:OTRS will need to be involved, but I am not that experienced when it comes to self-published work and I didn't want to give Bert incorrect advice. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: HealthandHope article deletion

Hello. I noticed that my article about Project C.U.R.E. was deleted for "unambiguous self promotion." I'd like to discuss with you ways that I can improve the content or bolster the sources so that the page can be published. Before my time working here, an article had been posted previously about the organization, and it was also deleted. We would very much like to contribute to Wikipedia, and we would appreciate any help you can provide. I look forward to hearing from you.

HealthandHope (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Blatant Hoaxes

Leaving articles that are blatant hoaxes does do harm to Wikipedia. It gives the opponents of Wikipedia more ammunition to discredit it because of more "deliberate misinformation". The contributions of SamSamSamSamSamSam give incontrovertible evidence that this was a hoax article intended as vandalism. Sure it's only a non-existent soap opera, but that's not the point. The point of that article was to vandalize. Which should not be allowed to stand. DarkAudit (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Footballer

my article on craig mcdowell is of interest to the footballing world in scotland other players in similar circumstances are on wiki why was this one removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulsterscott (talk • contribs) 12:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete it (I just was doing the courtesy of notifying you that someone else had nominated it), but I would imagine it was because the article merely said that he was a footballer who had played a few games; it didn't say that he had achieved any notability in his field of endeavor. Citations to third-party coverage of this person as a noteworthy player would tend to indicate his importance as a subject for the encyclopedia. If there are other articles on Wikipedia that are equally lacking in information about their subjects, please feel free to nominate them for deletion as well. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Vandalism........

Hi! First, I'd like to say thank you for taking care of the vandalism on the article. Second, I have my reasons as to why:

• I don't know how to revert articles to earlier versions......
• These guys keep doing it because they know it's wrong and I just can't understand why they do this. Sure, it might be funny but i JUST DON'T GET IT..... Can't they just make smarter choices???

I do apologize for my incivility. I admit that I might have been letting my emotions do all the editing......but next time, I'll be as professional as possible.

You know, without all the angry-mob feelings........

Thanks again! Lucky Cherub (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing talk page?

Not being an admin, I can't tell, but Talk:Classical treatment of tensors seems to have gone away, and there is some question about where it went. Could you please have a look? Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did delete the earlier version of the talk page. Going through the deleted revisions, I find there was only one revision of it, and the contents of it were as follows:

#REDIRECT Talk:Intermediate_treatment_of_tensors

I suspect that any earlier discussion you are looking for should be found on the redirect target page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. Looking at the edit history, someone had moved the existing article and its talk page over to the redirect target. Thanks for the clarification! Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Zoe gardner

This page has been recreated after you speedied it, so it may be worth casting your eye over it to see if it is sufficiently different now to avoid being deleted as recreated material. Cheers. Quantpole (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Unused Templates

Per your E-mail, while these templates aren't currently used, they could be used in two ways. First, any top 25 that contains a different length than the ones currently used would be useful. Second, if someone wanted to have more control over what is display, they could start with the 1-week and as each week is added, they increase it up, so while the 1-10 weeks may not be used currently, they could be used for a short week while the data is developing. This is described in the documentation of the templates Template talk:8ColPollTable and called "ramp up". Also there is a link to each of the templates from each template talk page as a group. While I won't be terrible upset if you want to delete it, they are of value, but nothing that can't be re-created quickly by copying one of the larger sets and pruning down to what is needed. Others have expanded upon what I had initially done and even created a top-15 versionStill, even as a deletionist, I don't see the harm in just leaving something that is useful but just not used. Please let me know if you decide to put up for deletion and I'll make a defense there as well, though I will certainly go along with whatever the outcome is and I probably won't put up more than what I have here. Thanks for contacting me first. MECU≈talk 14:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for responding. I don't have any agenda here other than cleaning house, so if you think these templates are potentially useful I will leave them alone. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

McLaren

I notice your bot is fixing some of the redirects caused by the awful page move - there may well be another move in the offing soon, since the new page name is just no good. Might be worth waiting to see how it turns out before fixing all the problems? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Even if the article is moved back to McLaren, the current title should be left as a redirect, so the links the bot has changed should still be valid. Therefore, I won't undo anything, but I'll stop making further changes. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok cool - I suspect the F1 Wikiproject will move it back after a discussion, but it's worth waiting to see. It certainly won't stay as it is, I bet. Not the best page move I've ever seen, but I guess the guy thought he was doing something useful. Thanks for your help! Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Template talk and my CSDs

Hey there R'n'B, I noticed you declined both my CSDs in both Template talk:Alicia Keys and Template talk:Chris Brown. Before contacting you, I wanted to make sure that both met the G6 criteria, and indeed they do (see this discussion). Also, taking a read at Template:Talkheader#Usage, it states: In particular, the template should not be added to otherwise empty talk pages. That changes the "discussion" tab at the top of the page from a "redlink" into a "bluelink", which may mislead people into thinking there is discussion. I'd like you to review these two talk pages and reconsider your declines. Regards. — Σxplicit 20:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

With G6, it's really, really important to make sure the reason for the deletion request is clear -- you need to be, um, what's the word? -- oh, yeah, Explicit.  :-) R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha, clever. Sorry for my lack of reasoning, Twinkle doesn't give me that option. I didn't think it would be declined, but I'll be more careful next time. Thanks. — Σxplicit 00:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Edenton Bell Battery

People keep putting that the article about the Edenton Bell Battery isnt notable and not enough articles link to it. Its offensive to the people of Edenton, the men of the former battery itself, and even me to say that it isnt notable enough to be on Wikipedia of all places. The whole reason the Battery exsisted was because the devotion of the people of Edenton and their donations. The Battery also fought with distinction in several major battles of the civil war. I think people say its not notable because it has to do with something about the Confederacy, it is notable and thats just racist if thats the case. Also 18 other articles link to it! So it has plenty of linked articles so its not a orphan page. Bottom line is could you help me improve the article so its not deleted. I REALLY want it to stay on Wikipedia. Its the principal of the thing and because its my first article that wasnt deleted in the first week of exsistence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Creasy (talk • contribs) 18:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

User:R'n'B, I'm sorry you're getting dragged into this mess.

I added (and re-added and re-added) the orphan tag to Edenton Bell Battery because it's an orphaned page as described at WP:ORPHAN. If you look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Edenton Bell Battery, you can verify that there are currently zero articles linking to it—not eighteen.

I added (and re-added and re-added) the notability tag as, to quote you, "it appears doubtful that the article meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I encourage you to review the standards and guidelines linked to in the first message on this page, particularly the need to cite independent, third-party sources to establish the notability of the article's subject. I hope you will improve the article if you are able to do so, before it is deleted."

To date, User:Daniel Creasy has added no usable references to the article.

User:Daniel Creasy has never responded on his talk page (or mine) to any of the messages I've left for him.

I haven't yet prod'd the article or sent it to CSD because I thought I'd give him time and see if he could improve it. So far as I can tell, he can't. Instead, he accuses me of being anti-Confederate and therefore, racist (huh?) because... well, I don't know. Maybe because I tried to improve it? Or because I reverted additions that explained why the battery is "speacial" [sic]?

At this point, I'm baffled about how to explain to an editor that not everything belongs in Wikipedia—some things just don't have the sourcing or aren't sufficiently important, and that's not a value judgement on him or his hometown.

Any help you can provide here would be appreciated... — Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What happened here?

[3]? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I ran a quick script to do null edits on User: pages in CAT:CSD because there were a bunch stuck there due to transclusions that had been removed. Apparently you deleted this page in the interval of 10 or 15 seconds between the script loading the page text and then re-saving with exactly the same text. It's gone now. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A question

About Russbot. Is he supposed to recreate a subpage that already been deleted from user request? Cheers, Abce2|AccessDenied 14:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

See previous section. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

List of leaders of micronations

This redirect did not create any controversy when I made it. Might I get your reasoning for undoing the change? Hiberniantears (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

List of leaders of micronations is not a redirect; therefore, it makes no sense for the talk page to be a redirect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh... that would do it. I didn't notice that my redirect of List of leaders of micronations had been undone by an IP last month. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirects with possibilities

Howdy, I noticed you and AWB removing (undisplayed and only seen in the edit box) text on redirect pages (p-soluble group for instance). First off, thanks for fixing several things about them.

Unfortunately, it makes it unclear how to organize redirects with possibilities similarly to how we organize stubs (like the {{algebra-stub}} template that was removed allows tracking the category; but now we need to do a category intersection to find "algebra redirects with possibilities").

Do you have any suggestions on how to annotate redirects with possibilities to give hints for the future stub writer?

For instance, it'd be nice to include a reference, a stub template, a one-liner description, and a few categories. Maybe some people would call that a true stub, but I would prefer to view it just as helpful hints to the future stub writer. As it is, on several redirects I've only included the categories, not having time even for the one-liner. JackSchmidt (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't really thought about that. The problem with "annotating" redirects by putting hidden text in the edit box is that there is a bug in the MediaWiki software relating to these redirects. If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Algebra&hidelinks=1, you will see several pages (including P-soluble group, because I put the stub tag back on it for testing) listed as redirects to Algebra that are not actually redirects to that page. In other words, any link that is in the edit box on a redirect page gets added to the redirect table, as if it were the target of the redirect. I try to remove all extraneous links from redirect pages to reduce the errors caused by this bug. This could be an obscure form of vandalism (for example, if someone adds a link to Pornography in the edit box on one of your algebraic redirects, then a search for pages linking to Pornography would turn up your redirects and anything that links to them). On the other hand, if the link is particularly useful and (as here) not misleading anyone, it might be reasonable to leave it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The bug definitely seems like a good reason to clean redirects. Also the bug itself sounds natural from a software standpoint, so waiting for it to be fixed is probably not the solution. The {{algebra-stub}} links are probably harmless, and could be avoid by adding the category directly, but I'll have to think (and check with WP:WPSS) about adding the category directly. Probably it will be easier to have the WP:WPM bot just keep track of which pages it indexes turn out to be redirects (it already detects redirects for the purpose of throwing them away). Maybe I'll just add (non-stub) categories to the redirect, and any other hints on the talk page. That should make the text visible and not interfere with any special software considerations for redirects. At any rate, I am happy with however you decide to clean them (please leave the categories, but any extraneous links are probably best removed). JackSchmidt (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Lamberts Bay

Thanks, Russ. I had never encountered this situation before and was reluctant to do the cut-n-paste, but didn't know what else to do. I should've figured there was something easy. Paxsimius (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Judicial Review is ready for your review ...

If this new setup is to your liking, then you can delete Judicial Review (Law) and Judicial Review (Theory). thanks for the feedback, Agradman (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• It looks like a good start; thanks for undertaking this. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of subpages

Thanks for deleting the pages in my userspace that I requested. If you could get thos one, tooo that would be great. :) Erwin Springer [talk] 18:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Die Kur

Hi, R&B. I hnk this is copyvio of http://www.findmusicvenue.com/live-music/band/?Gig=Die+Kur&Band=529. Could you double check for me? Dlohcierekim 21:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, also http://www.band-me-up.com/FIND/band/band_details.asp?TID=529&NAME=Die+Kur. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Xtravirt

Can I ask why you deleted the Xtravirt wiki page? If you knew the virtualization indusrty you'd know that Xtravirt are an important company in shaping the directions and standard to which they adhere.

If the article did not indicate the importance or significance of the subject then maybe a better course would havebeen tagging it for amendment. --JamesMchallem (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

But that's not what our guidelines say -- if an article does not assert that the subject is important or significant, it is to be deleted. If you can write a new article that does demonstrate why this is an important or significant company, please feel free to do so; and, if you can provide references to independent third-party reliable sources to support that view, it most likely would not be deleted. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Russ. Thanks for the input. I find myself walking a fine line here because most other companies at Xtravirts level and lower down in the scheme of things in the virtualization community have pages. The problem is that we have previously put on the page why the comapny is notable with multiple independent third-party sources and it was deleted under G11 advertising, which to be honest was a little unfair. Any suggestions? --JamesMchallem (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Russ, just posting to see if you might have any suggestions? --JamesMchallem (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not being familiar with the subject matter, it is hard for me to offer any particular suggestions. I did look at the revision that was deleted on 11 June 2009 by User:Orangemike, and frankly if it were me I would not have deleted it as being unduly promotional. However, I do think even that version was questionable as to notability, since most of the materials that were cited were company press releases or news articles quoting those press releases. To me, "notability" means that, even though there are 5,000 (or whatever number) companies around the world in this particular line of business, there is something that other observers have recognized about this company that makes it stand out from that crowd. It could be a distinctive product or technology, or achievement in terms of revenues or sales. But Wikipedia is not a directory, and just saying that a company exists and offers a product is not enough to make it notable. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Disambig

Did you skip today by design? Just wanted to point it out in case you'd be unhappy about missing a day's worth of data. If not, sorry to bug you all the time. Thanks for doing so much all the time at DPL and putting up with those who aren't as technologically savvy. Dekimasuよ! 03:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the Sunday update failed for some unknown reason. The history database is stored locally on a machine to which I don't have remote access, and if it fails over the weekend there's nothing I can do about it until Monday. It's not an ideal situation and I'm looking for other solutions, but for now I'm stuck with it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 08:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've undone my edit (slightly more detail at my talk). Dekimasuよ! 11:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)