User talk:SoWhy/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

thanks for the diligence!

Hey SoWhy, thanks for deleting all of those spam edits - I appreciate your work on that. Happy editing to you! -FlyingToaster (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'm happy to help :-) SoWhy 17:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

query re AIV

Re this: is the final warning for 206.166.49.31 on 23 September not recent enough to count? So that I can make appropriate reports in future, it would be helpful to know how recent it has to be. Many thanks. — Alan^✉ 17:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see the blocking policy on IPs. Vandal IPs are most times allocated dynamically and their owners can change over days. So warnings given out more than a week ago were most likely given to someone else. I advise you check the WHOIS in such cases (bottom of the talk page of an IP there is an link) and if there is any indication that the registrar is an internet service provider, you should consider aforementioned possibility and give out full warnings. If it's really a vandal, it can always be reported afterwards. Regards SoWhy 17:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply and for the talkback notification. — Alan^✉ 19:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Dum de dum de dummmmmmmmmmmm

Are silly headings allowed on your talk page?

Why can't I undo this edit? I wasn't aware of a restriction on image talks? Or is it because it's the first edit? And, on a side note, would you agree with removing the comment, or would you leave it? Maedin\^talk 18:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Usually I prefer headings that make sense, but I will make an exception for you ;-)

You are correct, if it's the first edit of the page, it cannot be undone. Because there is no revision to change to that is. Such pages can be speedy deleted as vandalism (CSD#G3), as I did with that one. That answers the other question as well ;-) SoWhy 18:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's Friday, you see, and the weekend ahead means headings like Dum de dum just seem so fitting! But I promise that you won't get silly headings on any other day of the week, they are only for very special occasions!

And you deleted it . . . power! Thank you! Hummm humm hum Maedin\^talk 18:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, well, I will spend my day tomorrow in the library, working on my paper, so I am not really in a Dum de dum mood. Glad to hear you are ;-)

You're welcome. In the future, just tag it for speedy deletion and someone will take care of it or deny it if it's really wrongly tagged. SoWhy 18:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

speedy

Hello SoWhy, I politely disagree to that, because the user missuses his userspace to promote himself, he had tried an article about himself, which got deleted Jomaine, and does now use the userspace for having an article about him, this is no testing there, just a promotinal site, which he can do on Geocities or Myspace if he wants to.

Best regards, --birdy _{(:> )=|} 19:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith I tend to decline such requests in user space, as G11 is not appropriate (not blatant advertising) and A7 is neither. If you think this has to be deleted, I suggest you take it to WP:MFD which will take care of it quite well. Seeing that it exists for several weeks there now, a speedy deletion is not required anyway. Regards SoWhy 19:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I honnestly don't care, it is in Your hands now, just wanted to let You know that this is possible abuse (at least it looks to me like that, even with good faith), I am not active here, I just stumbled over copyvios of this user because they were uploaded to commons taken from here, and because of that I marked them for deletion here too. Best regards, --birdy _{(:> )=|} 19:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Walsh College

Just because a crappy version of an article was speedy deleted does not mean that all links to the topic need to be deleted. It is a legitimate topic for a less crappy article. older ≠ wiser 22:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. I tried some new script and it did remove them. But I advise to relink them only when an article does exist. But regardless, I know the problem and I will not use that script again. Regards SoWhy 22:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a firm advocate of redlinks for topic that should have articles. As described on WP:REDLINK: Good red links help Wikipedia — they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished older ≠ wiser 22:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to relink them, but I think you should, if you know something about the topic, also create a stub for the subject first. As I said, in that case it was a mistake removing those links. Ah well, we live and learn - thanks for the notification, I removed the script responsible from my monobook. Regards SoWhy 22:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

no speedy for Yildun Internet Backup

greetings SoWhy, i just noticed you declined the speedy and wondered if you noticed that this page has already been speedied once (i nominated it that time too) and all the author did was ask for a copy of it to be placed on their talk page whereupon they just recreated the page again without modification. does that make any difference? cheers Mission Fleg (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed it was speedied once, but I also noticed that es:Yildun Internet Backup is an almost perfect copy (see Google translation), which leads me to believe that this page was translated from es-wiki (where it exists while I am quite sure that es-wiki does not tolerate blatant advertising as well). Also, I do not read any blatant advertising, just some advertising-tone but I do not think it warrants a speedy deletion under G11. You are free to challenge this decision at the deletion review but I rather think the article should be kept and just fixed for it's shortcomings or, if it has to be deleted, it should go to AfD instead. Regards SoWhy 08:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, i bow to your greater knowledge :) i'll keep an eye on it and maybe take it to afd if nothing improves. thanks Mission Fleg (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No reason to bow, I might be in error. ;-) But if you feel it sounds like an advertisement, you can also fix those things that you perceive as not neutral. :-)

On a side note, be careful with the G11. Not every article about a company or product that sounds a bit like advertising for it, is really eligible for that criterion. Try to use A7 instead wherever possible and if in doubt, tag for {{ad}} or use WP:PROD and WP:AFD instead. Regards SoWhy 08:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

sure, understood. part of whats going on here is me (the newbie) learning the boundaries of things like G11 (because you can read about it as much as you want but its how it works in action that counts) so your summary log comments are most helpful, like the one for S4 League, which i must admit i was borderline about. so thanks :) Mission Fleg (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. If you feel like you need to learn more about Wikipedia, as being a newbie, you should consider our premium adoption offers ;-) Regards SoWhy 09:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

yeah maybe :) at the moment i'm working on the theory of "be bold" and then wait for someone to hit you over the head with a stick when you get it wrong! cheers Mission Fleg (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, not like that.

The assignment is not "create an article about me!". Any item we may submit. Well, it something like a joke for the holiday we have now and we hope out dear teacher can have fun with it. Well, it's ok and i wont edit this item again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guoquan (talk • contribs) 08:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Watch out for IP you blocked

Watch out - 74.132.151.234 back soon. RoryReloaded hasn't been civil (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, it can be, in 10 hours. But I am quite sure that someone will take care of it fast and quiet if it returns again. But do you know more about that IP that you are warning me about it? SoWhy 09:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Next time you give me a talkback, could you please put it at the bottom? I'm watching him... RoryReloaded hasn't been civil (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, sure no problem. I just place them at the top because they are made to be removed immediately anyway, so it's not really sensible putting it all the way at the bottom where the user has to scroll far more to remove it. SoWhy 20:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Great work!

Thanks for clarifying this! Also, great job on page protections. Keep up the great work! :) Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thank you very much :-) You do a good job on them too and I like your humor ;-) SoWhy 07:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Harsh Block

Don't you think this block is a little harsh [1] considering that the previous block of this ip [2] was 8 months ago. I've seen more profane trolling and vandalism receiving considerably less block time. IMHO, page blank vandalism, after months of inactivity does not warrant a 6 month block. --Flewis^(talk) 12:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to take into account that the last block was a six month one as well; so this was barely out of blocking duration and restarted. So of course it was not active for months - it was blocked! School IPs are eligible for long blocks if they got a log of long blocks already and so I just continued previous blocks. Schools, unlike normal IPs, can easily contest their block by proving that the IPs blocked are now needed for serious Wikipedia work. See also the note on the IPs talk page: In the event of persistent vandalism, anonymous editing may be disabled for up to 1 year at a time. Regards SoWhy 12:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the reply --Flewis^(talk) 13:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Indian religions

I think that you need to check nexxt1, he is being very disruptive. I have reverted Nexxt 1’s edit as he is using dubious sources like medical and geography books as references for Indian religions. He is not bothering to reply or enter into debate on his sources on talk pages but is making wild accuations that User:Mitsube is my sock. He removed all the warnings from his pages and also the fact that he has been banned many times and once indefinately. --Anish (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me what exactly this is about or more exactly how I come into this? I handle dozens of requests within hours so without exact context I am afraid I do not know which incident you are referring to. Regards SoWhy 20:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Emoticons

If you want to be taken more seriously in your obsessive and humour-free "patrolling" of this site, please refrain from using those ridiculous emoticon symbols. I assume you are an adult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairhat (talk • contribs) 12:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am. But I do not see why being an adult means that you need to stop having a sense of humor. You should try it some time, it's great to have one. ;-)

Alternatively, if you think this a serious complaint (which is a bit spoofed by the "" around patrolling), you should try and tell me what this is about, seeing that this is your first edit on this project... SoWhy 12:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairhat (talk • contribs)

I guess that is as a "no" to my second question about if it's a serious complaint. Ah well, thanks for clarifying. Please continue to make such great contributions so I can give you a shiny medal for it.</sarcasm> ;-) Regards SoWhy 12:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Chartered Institute of Marketing

Hi, you deleted The Chartered Institute of Marketing as a copyright violation. I was the nominator. I just noticed that the original author of the article, User:David Thorp has a copy of the information as his userpage. This would also be a copyright violation, but I'm not sure of what the policy and procedures for this situation in userspace would be. Could you advise? Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COPYVIO and WP:USER: Note that repeatedly inserting copyrighted content on your own user page after being notified that doing so violates our policy is also considered disruptive, and may result in it being protected. I advise you tell the user to remove such material and to not re-add it again. If they do not want to remove it or do not react, you can remove it, as material in userspace has to comply with the GFDL just like everywhere else. Regards SoWhy 15:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. I didn't find anything about userspace in the copyright stuff which is why I asked. I didn't manage to locate WP:USER which answers my question. Your help is appreciated. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Keep up the good work with WP:WPWF, it is appreciated and desperately needed! :-) SoWhy 15:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

SoWhy, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again, Spencer^T♦C 02:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hindi and farsi common words deleted, why?

:( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.155.122 (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Because there was no indication of what context that article had, what purpose the list was to serve and because it looked like a cut-and-paste job, indicating a test page.

Please review Wikipedia is not a dictionary as well. There is a project called Wiktionary if you want to assist in providing translations. Your help there would be greatly appreciated. Regards SoWhy 07:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning

The spoiler warning in Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines has nothing to do with why I removed the text. There is too much game guide information in that article as is, and that entire section involves actions the player make take in the end-game. These actions are irrelevant to the description of the character, as that particular section is meant to do. If a player wants to find details on how to approach the end game, they may do so by looking at Bloodlines fan sites or walkthroughs.

Even so, I also don't think it's appropriate for users to be whiting out text on Wikipedia, to be read only on selection. -FeralDruid (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

About the spoiler, you need to use correct edit summaries then. I did believe that it was about the spoiler warning and removing it is something I agree on.

Second, I disagree with your removal and undid it to take it to discussion. While I agree that details are irrelevant, as for example how LaCroix behaves during the game or suchlike, I think it is a major character information that he dies in the end. Numerous examples all over the project address this in the same matter. The same applies to the paragraph, which only explains further how he dies. Nothing of that information is detailed enough imho, just the bare facts of the character's demise and I think the fact that this character dies in a certain fashion, despite being the ruler of the city before, is important to its description. You are free to argue this on the article's talk page of course. Regards SoWhy 09:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

One Voice at Vino

Why is it of no significance, it is the only showcase of talent in the island at this time. Would you like references for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian M.S. Royer (talk • contribs) 21:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, yes, references are always needed, see the Verifiability policy. Second, deletions under CSD#A7 do not need to care if something is significant or notable. The article needs to indicate why this should be considered a notable subject. The article you are referencing to has not said anything about "the only showcase" or similar. There was no indication in the article to believe that the article was about something remotely notable and so it was eligible for speedy deletion.

Please refer to the notability guideline to inform yourself about what can be considered notable enough to warrant an article on this project. You are welcome to recreate the article but I suggest you read guide like Wikipedia:Your first article first which gives a nice overview about what to think about when creating an article. SoWhy 22:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

V:TM-B Spoiler

I didn't delete, btw. If you look at the plain text, and particularly the accompanying sentence, you can see it is selectable, what I call 'invisible ink'. This gives the option of having the text visible or not, and the sentence includes instructions. I haven't actually looked yet to see whether you reverted or not. There was also a lot of other good info in the edit. Anarchangel (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

-after seeing the edit battle- Thank you for defending the original text. The semicolon is a nice trick, is that the same, or a different degree of boldness than the apostrophes? Is the Wiki markup policy exclusive, that is, if something does not conform to it then it is not allowed? Surely the white text is relatively harmless, and not specifically mentioned in the admittedly brief skim I gave of it. Anarchangel (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPOILER for the relevant guideline. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such, it is our primary goal to supply the reader with information the easiest possible way. If someone does not want to be "spoiled", he shouldn't read an encyclopedia. Whitening the text is a known method to avoid such things in forums, I know that full well. Here it is frowned upon and will be reverted.

As for the markup, I think you should read up on WP:MARKUP and other guides. ";" looks like bold text with a manual break afterwards but uses another HTML markup. In the end, it does not look different to the reader but is a nice and fast way to add such headings.

And as for the "defending", there is no need to thank me. Incidentally I wrote that part myself originally but the point is valid still, as said above, the project must strive to inform the reader of anything important while not become all too detailed to make it difficult to read. Regards SoWhy 07:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Kurama (YuYu Hakusho) and Talk:Hiei (YuYu Hakusho)

Should these be deleted? The articles have been redirected, but this may be a different case seeing as the talk page histories are a little longer than that of Talk:Yusuke Urameshi and Talk:Kazuma Kuwabara. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you discuss this at the talk page of the article they were redirected to, seeing if the people there believe there is something worth keeping. Those talk pages are too long to qualify for speedy deletion and should be discussed at WP:MFD if needed. Regards SoWhy 20:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. Also, I had tagged Talk:Gonzo (disambiguation) with {{db-maintenance}} but another sysop took the tag off. May you also delete that and Talk:School (band)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting Talk:School (band). What about the other one? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I will not undo another admin's actions if there is no obvious reason that doing so very quickly is important. In this case, if you disagree with the declined speedy deletion, I advise you take it to the sysop who removed it. Regards SoWhy 19:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I know this is late, but I was away for a few days and just dropped here to say Congratulations on your successful RFA . Best wishes again !-- Tinu Cherian - 09:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? I appreciate it nonetheless, so thank you very much :-) SoWhy 09:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Same here. Did not notice you were promoted. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

And here! I know you'll make a wonderful admin! :) Best, --Cameron* 18:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's hope it. Thanks for all the kind words and thanks for the funny message KillerChihuahua ;-) SoWhy 18:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for unprotecting Jeff Katz. SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 11:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome :-) SoWhy 11:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Adoptee's questions

Well, I don't know if this is the place you want me to ask you questions on; I know you like to do the entire talk on one page (either yours or mine) -a choice which I fully agree on- but if you prefer, we can move this whole thing to my talk page, if it is more comfortable for you.

Anyway, might as well start with the questions... Here they go:

• Deleted edits: I'm trying not to catch editcountitis, but I have to admit I have been checking some online edit counters, just to be familiarized with the whole total edits thing. But there is one thing I don't understand... What counts as a 'deleted edit'? Is it an edit I made that is undone by someone else? Is it an edit I made which was deleted by an administrator? A page I made that got deleted? (I had a subpage on my userpage that I wanted gone, so I tagged it and it was deleted –does that count?). I want to understand more or less what these are, if they are a bad thing, a good thing, or what.

Deleted edits are those edits that were made on a page that got deleted afterwards for whatever reason. It represents the difference between those edits that can still be seen by everyone (in the edit histories) and those edits that got deleted (like when you tagged a page for speedy deletion and it was deleted) and can only be seen by admins (or other special users).

I see. This is more of a curiosity question, but why can't I see my deleted edits? Why is it a privilege?

And was there a relatively recent change of policy regarding this matter? I ask this because the Wikimedia Edit Counter has a browse button for your deleted edits— and when I click it, it shows the following message: due to a change in policy, the archived contributions browser is currently unavailable. Which is kind of strange, because a change in policy appears as an internal link, yet when I click it an error is displayed (404 - Not Found).

Well, that is because there is a reason with the policies that these articles were deleted. Following logically from that is, that if they are deleted, their content should not show up on the project again, otherwise the purpose would be defeated.

As for the edit counter, you are using the old version that is not really maintained anymore. Currently the wannabe_kate counter is the most used. If you click the link provided by "change of policy", you will notice that it's from Dec 2005, i.e. quite a long time ago already.

• Vandalism: As you might have seen on my talkpage, I am attempting to act as a recent changes patroller. I have (I believe) successfully reverted a few vandalism edits, mainly by undoing revisions which are obviously malicious in intent. If I want to apply for rollback privileges (I won't yet –but this is with using Huggle in mind), I have to prove I understand what vandalism is (according to what J.delanoy said on my talk page). But how do I prove this, once I apply? Do people just check my contributions list or something?

Yes, that is what J.delanoy probably meant. Rollback will be granted to you if your contributions show that those edits you reverted using undo or manually and claimed to be reversions of vandalism, were really vandalism. That's the best way to prove that you understood what WP:VAND is about.

I've been doing some patrolling these past few days, and so far I think I'm doing well. I've been using Twinkle along with Lupin's tool, which saves a lot of time compared to manually patrolling the Recent Changes page. Actually, I only found that page useful for spotting people who are blanking pages, but usually someone gets to that quicker than me (I hear Huggle is pretty darn fast), and I can't really spot more discrete (yet still obvious) instances of vandalism.

I have, I think (from looking at my contributions), about 200 edits which consist of both undoing and warning users who have vandalized a page (which is the correct thing to do, right?); in some cases in which I saw the person continued to vandalize relatively shortly after being given a final warning, I reported the IP address instead of warning again. I have some questions regarding this matter:

• What happens if a long time has passed since a user has been given a final warning (assuming it's an IP address —would it change if it's not?) and there is vandalizing again? Do you report to administrators, warn again? Both?
• I'm going to ask J.delanoy some of these questions too for additional input, but even though I see him reverting vandalism often, I still value your opinion as much as his. So... I don't know if you still patrol pages, but you use (at least used) Huggle, right? Did you have any experience with Twinkle, Lupin's Tool, or something else previous to acquiring rollback rights? Do you think Huggle removes the need for ANY other tools?
• What about the rollback feature included in those two tools I mentioned previously? I still don't fully understand the difference between reverting, undoing, restoring and rollbacking. I know you can undo without any tools, and that's the same as reverting an edit, right? I read undo attempts to revert an edit (or several if you're comparing versions which intermediate revisions not shown, is that correct?) without changing all others... If rollback is just restoring to a previous version (which I'm not sure if it is), what is the advantage? My main question would be —what is so good about rollbacking, and what is the advantage of having this privilege versus editing with other tools or manually? Also, if you know what the difference is between admin rollback and the rollback function Twinkle and Lupin offer, that'd clarify quite a bit. Lupin actually has an option to use non-admin rollback —I checked that option because I don't want to get in trouble by attempting to use something I'm not allowed to use... But you can't just rollback like admins do because you have Lupin's tool in your monobook, right? When I saw that, I was really confused.
• I'm not going to ask you to go through every diff on my list, but if you could check a few reversions I made or warnings I gave and give me a little feedback, that would be great. So far I've had no complaints, and my page hasn't even been vandalized, but I don't want to do this 1000 times and then learn I was doing something fundamentally wrong. How far from being ready to acquire rollback would you say I am? Don't worry, I'm still not going to ask for it anyway, no matter what you say :P

Yes, warning is the correct thing to do. If you haven't done so, I suggest you make yourself familiar with WP:WARN to be able to warn users without automatic tools as well. Sometimes there is a need for that.

Now to your questions:

• If it's a registered account, then it's no change. Warnings are given to people, so if we can rightfully assume that it's the same person doing so, then we have to assume that the person decided to ignore the warnings. More would not help, so the next stop is WP:AIV. It is different with IPs. Most IPs are dynamically assigned, so old warnings to the IP might have been to a completely different person. Those have to be given again, because when there is any chance that it's not the same person, we have to assume it is really not. Such IPs reported will usually be declined as "stale" warnings.
• I am still doing so, I just am busy with writing a paper at the university's library, which is incidentally from where I am writing this. I have tried Twinkle and Lupin some time ago, but I did not like their usage. I prefer Huggle as a standalone tool that can be opened independent from the browser. Yes, I think it is superior to Twinkle and other tools (but that's like the PC or Mac debate, pure preference) but it cannot remove the need for all scripts as you can see from my monobook.js.
• "Reverting" means to change back to a former version, regardless how. If you rollback, use undo, just edit an old version and click save or remove the changes manually, it's all reverting. Undo is a feature of the software to minimize the need for editing old versions and saving. It attempts to remove certain edits within the history but actually just tries to identify those changes and offers you a version without them to review and save. Rollback is an option to revert anything by a user without reviewing. It's less ressource-consuming as it does not show an edit window but just does it with two clicks. If you continue to fight vandals, it's the way to go.
  Rollback can be granted to non-admins, as you know. If you haven't got it, the tools will emulate it but still use the edit window (just automated). I have lupin in my monobook, but if you look closely it's commented out with //, i.e. it does not load ;-)
• I looked at some of them and they seemed fine. I think you can request it within a few weeks max, although I will not grant it to you, being biased and all that. I suggest you ask J.delanoy for his opinion as well, if you are sending him questions anyway^^

• Creating and modifying objects (tables, templates): I read (and occasionally just skim over) a lot of guide pages on Wikipedia, tutorials, all that... But frankly, it just seems a bit massive sometimes. There are so many guides for doing stuff, it's just a bit confusing sometimes. As you might have seen on my userpage, I have a few userboxes, a thumbnail... some very basic things. And to be honest, I learned most of those by taking notes (so to speak) from other userpages and such, just by editing and trying out stuff in the preview mode, copying codes, etc. Needless to say, I made it work most of the time, but I'd like to know a bit more about things like creating a table, or modifying a template (an example would creating a code that adds text to what {{SA-novice}} generates. Can you point me in the right direction to a newbie-friendly guide on Wikipedia for this (if there is one)?

That is how I learn(ed) stuff as well, trying and tinkering. You can try to read Help:Tables and Help:Template (also Help:A quick guide to templates). But as said, I suggest you just edit {{SA-novice}} to copy the content to your userspace and tinker a bit with it. It's quite straight-forwarded in this case I think. :-)

Just tell me, what you want to do, if you still need assistance.

I managed to modify the template and write what I wanted, but I had one little problem. I copied the entire code that appeared when I edited {{SA-novice}}, and then started modifying what I needed. I left this as part of the original code:

---

<noinclude> [[Category:Service award templates]] </noinclude>

---

but then, when I put the modified code on my userpage, it was actually put in the category of service award templates! I entered the category and my user page was at the end of the list. What does <noinclude> do, then? I ended up removing those three lines, and apparently my userpage was removed from the category too.

I also experimented a bit with tables, and managed to get a few things right, but I'm still going to continue reading because to be honest, I found them a little complicated (I was attempting to align reduced sized images in table rows, just for reference). But I'll keep trying and tinkering ;)

<noinclude> means, that the part between those tags will not be included when the template is used within another article. It just appears on the template's own page, for example, as in this case, to categorize the template. Other uses include e.g. writing about how to use it or what the purpose is. Its counterpart is <includeonly> which can be applied to all those things you do not want to be shown on the template's own page but only when it's included somewhere.

• Wikiprojects: About Wikiprojects... As I understand, they are... well, it's kind of hard to define. Is it a group of editors, a group of pages? I recently made a new article about the singer Dido, who is one of my favorite singers –which is why I usually watch her pages and try to contribute (in small ways for now) to making articles related to her better. I noticed some of 'her' articles need a bit of cleaning up (even though they are not tagged), and a bit of expansion too, if a newbie editor may say so.
  This is why I was considering starting a WikiProject. But then I read a task force should be considered for a project with a narrow scope... such as a band (Even though I've seen WikiProjects that are about 1 band only, though usually more significant). I'm kind of confused now, to be honest :P I don't even know if there are people interested, what to do if there are, or if there are not... In fact I don't even know if I'm up for the job, to be honest. Maybe mantaining a WikiProject is harder than it seems, or too much of a job for me. What is your experience with WikiProjects? Is there something you can tell me, some basic advice to consider before even thinking of starting a new one?

They are groups of editors, coordinating to improve articles about certain topics (see WP:WikiProjects). They grew like crazy but then people realized that not every topic can attract a large number of editors. For example, there is a WikiProject for Doctor Who but none for NCIS. So if you do not know that there are a number of willing editors, you should not consider a WikiProject at all. You might want to consider a taskforce within WP:MUSICIANS but I'd advise you ask there or at WT:MUSIC first if there are any takers. Because if you cannot find any other editors, there is no sense in such a project or taskforce.

Got it. If I still like starting this in some time, I'll start asking around in those places.

That's it for now. Looking forward to your answers :) --QuadrivialMind (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No, my talk page is fine. It get's archived automatically when it's done and the Archive's index allows to easily browse those archive sections. I answered above. Regards SoWhy 20:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answers. I have replied with some follow-up questions above. Feel free to take your time to answer. See you around! --QuadrivialMind (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, hopefully that helps. I will now go back to writing my paper, have a nice day :-) SoWhy 07:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answers. If you don't mind, I'm going to copy and archive them on my talk page, for future reference. Cheers. --QuadrivialMind (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. It's all released under GFDL anyway ;-) SoWhy 21:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedometors

How do you know the relevance of the Speedometors article? Are you an expert on music of seventies/the scene/London? Do you know these people? How many published songs have you written? I know the layout sucked but I'm a little busy mixing a record at the moment and thought some of you experts may help. My intention was not to promote any band or person but to supply information that links or will link to other entries on the site. IE: Checkout Elliott Comprehensive school in the Pearce Brosnan entry. Speedo Robbie Watson appears in the school alumini along with Pearce. It seems there are a lot of people out in Wiki-land (sic) who like to brag about themselves on their user page but are short on substance. I will not be submitting anymore articles I'll save them for the book. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedo89 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

First off all, I do not think you can evaluate my personality but even if you could, it does not matter. I deleted the page as it only consisted of tags and nothing else, which is the state you edited it to. Thus it was eligible for deletion under CSD#A3. The other two times it was deleted by different admins under CSD#A7. If you think those were mistakes, you need to talk to them or take it to deletion review. Regards SoWhy 18:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hello SoWhy. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 01:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

David Russell (artist) page

Hello,

I would like to ask you to reconsider the deletion of the Wikipedia page about the film artist David Russell. I have edited the page to remove promotional-sounding language, and replaced it with quotes from actual articles published about David Russell, and included references. I have also made links to the main source of information about David Russell, www.imdb.com, the reputable film industry data base that lists all credits and publicity about David Russell.

Please review the page as it is now and let me know if I need to make any additional changes to conform the page to the Wikipedia standards.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would remove the deletion warning from the page.

Sincerely,

Nancy Lennon <E-Mail removed> Crvenka (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you must misunderstand the processes. I have declined a speedy deletion of this page, which is the only process I as an admin can decide upon myself. Now it has been nominated for deletion according to the deletion policy. In this process it is not my decision but the one of the community. If you feel like this page should not be deleted, please head to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Russell (artist) and discuss this with the other members of Wikipedia and in five days another admin will review the discussion and decide whether there is consensus to delete it. If you want to fix the issues cited as reasons, I suggest you look at other articles about people who work in similar fields of work (e.g. Jack Kirby) and try to emulate the writing style found there. Regards SoWhy 11:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikicookie

I am awarding you this WikiCookie for your constructive edits on Wikipedia--LAAFan^sign _review 19:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmmh....thanks *munch* SoWhy 19:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedometors

(same message to three deleting admins) Hello all. Just letting you know that I have restored the article Speedometors which all three of you speedy deleted (two A7s and one A3). I don't object to submitting the article for deletion but clearly there was a claim of notability and 1970s bands that anyone still cares about probably is notable enough by the fairly generous standards of the en.wiki! I'll try to solidify the article with a few references. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine for me. The article was empty when I deleted it so I could not judge it (see above), but I doubt it was having such a clear claim of notability if it got deleted twice under the same criterion before. But A7 is always with room for interpretation and I am happy to see that you are willing to work on it :-) SoWhy 17:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Gonorrhea and others

Admin, please revert idiot edits 66.251.199.141 using invented references to this and dozens of other articles. I already have done much manually on other articles, but this one is protected. 70.137.179.88 (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...no. I suggest you head to WP:ANI and voice your concerns, especially proving that those references are invented. Such reverting is a content dispute and thus should not be simply reverted when you do not back up your claim. SoWhy 20:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Refs have been verified to be a hoax by checking against PubMed data base. Idiot editor is blocked for vandalism. Done. No action on your side reqd any more. 70.137.179.88 (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

E. J. Wells (musician)

You said "here is no reason why this should qualify as CSD#G11".

I was going through images. Found this: Image:EJWells.jpg uploaded by User:Bocadiablo. Summery says: this is my image, owned by me, from my website...www.ejwells.net. Image is being used on E. J. Wells (musician) page. Page was created by User:Loreleishannon. I looked at users history: Special:Contributions/Loreleishannon and see there was some sort of disupute with D'Amico so I followed that and read the talk page. A post made under the header "Not All Guys Named E.J. Wells are fictional" was signed "Preceding unsigned comment added by Bocadiablo". So I look at [Bocadiablo history]. SO now I take a close look at the main article. Look at the External links: E. J. Wells Official site, E. J. Wells studio page (Basic Rates: $35/hr $240/8 hr day in case you wanted to know.), and E.J Wells online store at CD Baby. (Which currently goes to a "Sorry! You found a bad link" page) Under "References" we see "Arduser, John" with a link to the main page of "Ruin Records". If you go back up to the top of the article you read: Happyland Studio has recorded and you will see him listed. Next is "Garcia, Larry". However you click on the link and there is nothing on that person. It is the E. J. Wells bio and booking information page. If you click on the "CD Available" link there you are taken to the "Ruin Records" page. But not the main page, a merchandise page listing the E. J. Wells CD as well as other projects. For shits and grins I looked at the "history" page where you will find that E. J. Wells has a connection to that label...so much so that on the "Contact" page you have a rather large "Email E.J Wells" link. (Contact Image).

So there you have it. I was not looking to randomly make a G11 claim however show me where the people who were involved in this are not involved and how any of the links are not advertising. It is clever I give you that, but it is pretty clear when you start clicking around to find the NPOV citations and links they aren't there. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:CSD#G11 is only for blatant cases of advertisement. In this case that is not the case, even if you feel that it might have a ring of it. If it's done sneaky, it's per definition not blatant and I think the article would still exist if you cut all those links from it. G11 is only for such cases when removing all those advertising stuff would mean removing everything from the article. I suggest you remove those links and what ever you think sounds like an ad, citing this as a reason in your edit summary and/or take the article to WP:AFD if you think it should be deleted. It does, however, not qualify under the very narrow definition of CSD#G11 and this is why I declined it. Regards SoWhy 21:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Xymmax RfA

I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeking administrator opinion

Thanks for the help. I am watching the page; we'll see what happens. Thanks again. Truthanado (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanx a lot

Thanks for supporting independent music. I know that you wrote something along the lines of how it wasn't your fault that inferior articles are eliminated by the Wikistapo or whatever, but hey, oh well. I guess it's always cool to have a scapegoat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BendyMcFoulFowl (talk • contribs) 00:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Your point being? If I deleted an article that you created, keep calm and consider why that happened. If you review the criterion cited (CSD #A7) you will notice that the article was deleted because it did not assert why the subject was notable. Please review our notability guidelines for determining what qualifies as notable. Regards SoWhy 06:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

New question

Hey there, how are you? It's your adoptee again :P

This time, I have a very simple question: is there any way to change your password? I couldn't find info on this, only loads of tips on how to create a strong one.

If you could shed any light on this matter, I would be, as always, thankful :)

See you around!

P.S. I hope you did well on that paper you were writing the other day, by the way :) --QuadrivialMind (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is simple: Go to "my preferences", it's there on the first page where it says "Change Password" ;-) SoWhy 06:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: Thanks, I hope so. Will take some time till I know, I will hand it in today and they usually take 4-8 weeks to grade them...

Duh, thanks. I've changed just about EVERYTHING on my preferences and somehow missed that. I'm going to change it in a sec. Also, I just came up with a question, so if you don't mind me asking here...

I noticed in some pages –specially user pages and talk pages– something that is, to me, quite strange. It appears that with a very simple code, as if it was a template or something, you can generate very complex things (or even entire pages!). For example, in your talk page, you can find the code

{{User:SoWhy/Talkheader}}

which produces your header which contains the guidelines for your talk page.

What I'm wondering is... What is this kind of code? How does it work? Not that I want to, but for example, if it was my desire to edit something about your header, I wouldn't be able to, since all I'm able to see is "{{User:SoWhy/Talkheader}}". Where is all the 'real' info stored?

Thanks for taking the time to answer. Cheers --QuadrivialMind (talk) 11:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know how templates work? When using {{ }} around a certain text, the MediaWiki software will look at Template:certain_text and if it exists, just project everything from there to where the {{ }} are. It works the same with other namespace, you just have to specify it accordingly. And that's what I did here. The "real" info is stored exactly where it says so, at User:SoWhy/Talkheader. I just created a seperate page for this "template" that I use only for my purposes (and thus is not for Template: namespace). You can do it with virtually any page, but you have to be careful, as for example {{User:SoWhy}} would include my whole userpage at the specific point. It is done primarely to have the pages less cluttered with code, e.g. I have my committed identity, my userboxes, my header and my links on my user page all on different sub-pages and I just include them. Hope that explains it. Regards SoWhy 11:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oooooooooh. *something clicks in QuadrivialMind's brain*. You just blew my mind there, mate! Thanks, that cleared up a lot. Also (I'm sorry, this is starting to turn into an endless chain of questions!) but I have two three more things which I neglected to ask:

• A few hours ago, I tried Huggle out (it's fantastic, by the way), but the latest version did not work on my computer. I get a strange error and I can not start it up. However, I read on the feedback subpage that quite a few people have this error too; and it could be worse, since some people apparently can't use any version –I, in fact, am using 0.7.12.
  I know that if Gurch hasn't said anything, you probably don't know either, but do you have any idea if I could fix this? I don't really know what new things the latest version has (maybe it's just some minor updates), but is it true some people can use it and some can't? Because I don't understand how Wikimedia could affect running a program on someone's computer before even accesing the database (because according to the notice, Wikimedia changes broke Huggle). How do you work with Huggle?
• I'm finding it more and more common to be utterly confused by timestamps. Is there any way to show all times (in signatures, for example) according to a single timezone? It's driving me mad. Usually I see everything according to my timezone (because of what I changed on my preferences), but, for example, on your talkpage, that's not the case –even when I'm signing my own comments, the time is not the same as mine.
• Is my preferences the only place I can edit my signature in? I don't want to insert a fancy code, but if I wanted to, would I have to put it all there in that small little box? If I want to preview it, should I just save it, then use the sandbox or something? Also, when I press the signature button on the edit toolbar, these two characters (--) appear automatically. Are those part of the signature? Can I sign with without them appearing, but using the button anyway? Basically, I just want to remove them from my signature, but I was hoping to do it automatically... Will I have to press the button and then every time delete the two --, leaving just the four tildes? That's tiresome, I'm too lazy for that! :D

Thanks again for taking the time to answer. Cheers --QuadrivialMind (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, you are welcome:

• I use 0.7.12 at the moment, 0.8.1 making some strange things. I got such errors too once in a while and I "fixed" it by just retrying until it worked. But yeah, the message is correct and the newest version will not run properly. It connects to the server on startup and reads different configuration files and suchlike and thus changes there affected the software itself. Just use 0.7.12 for now ;-)
• Because the signing is permanent, it is not calculated anew every time you load the page. Thus the time used is UTC, which is universal. If you get confused with your own time zone, I suggest heading to my preferences and activating "A clock in the personal toolbar that shows the current time in UTC and also provides a link to purge the current page" under Gadgets. It shows a clock with UTC all the time, thus allowing you to easily determine what time the timestamps were created.
• Yes, it is. You can use any page you like, create the sig there and use the preview button until you are satisfied, then just copy+paste it to the little box. Don't forget to check "raw signature" if you made the links to your pages in it yourself. As for the button, the "--" are not part of the sig but it seems to have evolved as the default look. I have yet to find a way to disable that but I have long found it easier and faster just typing the four tildes.

Come back if you have more questions ;-) SoWhy 12:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Rfa Spam

Thank you so much for your support on my RFA, which today passed unanimously. I will do my best to make sure that I don't let any of you down. If you ever need any help with anything, feel free to ask me, i'll be happy to. Thanks again--Jac16888 (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

I noticed you protected a few element pages previously, which I wanted to thank you for. Also, can I request your help again by protecting Copper as the vandalism has been pretty bad there lately too. Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...first off, no problem. I did protect it as well, but in the future you should turn to WP:RFPP for those requests, because I will not be able to react fast all the time. Regards SoWhy 19:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright...will do. Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Raappana

Why did you delete Raappana after I had deleted the article about a Finnish reggae musician and remade it as a redirect to Erkki Raappana? You cite the reason Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person. Is the commander of the 14th Division, one of the most famous generals in the Winter War, not enough important or significant? I agree that the contemporary reggae artist who uses the artist name Raappana is not notable enough, but surely Erkki Raappana (whose real surname is Raappana, not like that reggae artist guy) is? There are other cases of the surname alone redirecting to the most famous person holding it. For example, Kekkonen redirects to Urho Kekkonen, the 8th President of Finland. It is only at Kekkonen (disambiguation) that you find a link to Mariah Kekkonen, a Finnish female porn star. JIP | Talk 20:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. I started going through three dozen CSD tags, opening all the pages in tabs (at approximately 22:05 UTC). At 22:06 UTC you changed it from a delete worthy article to a redirect but when I came to it soon later I still had the old version open, somehow cached probably. So I deleted based on that. I have restored the redirect now of course. Regards SoWhy 20:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks! JIP | Talk 21:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm Sorry

I'm sorry I was acting like an asshole in my last message (Thanx a lot). You are right, I should not have been so nonchalant. I knew that the article wasn't gonna last 5 minutes, I just wanted to see how long it would last. I thought that it would've lasted long enough for me to continue editing it. Instead of thinking it through, I took it out on you just because I was having a bad day, and you should not have been subjected to that. So I hope you accept my apology for my poor response to the absolute truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BendyMcFoulFowl (talk • contribs)

Sure, no harm done, I understand that and I know such days full well. Two tips if I may: First off, you should use ~~~~ to sign your posts on talk pages such as this one. Second, if you think the article can satisfy the notability guidelines, I advise you create it within your user space and then move it to the article space once you are done editing it. Regards SoWhy 07:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Son of Scarface semi

please understnd that I am not complaining since it was protected on my preferred version and I don't WANT to edit it currently, but I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that the protection policy which you linked in your edit summary explicitly says that semiprotection should not be used to settle content disputes - the section you linked to applies to full protection.98.217.180.206 (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
P.S. You can reply - or not - here on your own talk page; I will come back to check it.

The protection policy also is based on the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and so when restricting this basic principle, the least harming way to stop disruption should be used. The section you are quoting, "it should not be used to settle content disputes", refers to situations when established (i.e. autoconfirmed) users want to shut out IPs and newly created accounts over a dispute of content.

In this case there was an edit war between two IP groups. Cases which allow full protection can be, applying some common sense, replaced with semi protection when the effect is the same - stopping the edit war and forcing the parties to discuss it. There was no reason to shut out autoconfirmed, not edit-warring editors over the edit war of unregistered users. So that was my rationale behind the protection. Regards SoWhy 11:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Loudes13

Sorry to drag you into this, but since you've already deleted File:CynthiaBumperSticker.jpg, you're passingly familiar with the situation. The above user has immediately followed that earlier action up by uploading File:CynthiaMcKinney.jpg, another self-made political advertisement. Accordingly, I've tagged it for deletion and warned him on his talk page about his present behavior. Do you mind reviewing my warning and keeping an eye on this user? As I state in my warning, this sort of thing really can jeopardize our nonprofit status, which would be bad. Thanks in advance, and sorry for making more work for you. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...hard to say, multiple users use userboxes like "Barrack Obama for President" these days and its usage is tolerated. Also, banners can be uploaded if they serve to aid the article they are about, i.e. the related campaign. I deleted the first image as an attack image against Obama, not for its political content (see CSD#G10). I left the user a rather long warning, using {{uw-upload4im}}, that they should not use Wikipedia as a webhost (see WP:NOT#HOST) and that such images need to be used in an article or at least on a userpage (but not just uploaded) as well as that political campaign images that attack another candidate, while usual in the real world, are not acceptable here. Regards SoWhy 06:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Right; it's not the userspace stuff I care about (to be frank, I tend towards being extremely tolerant of userspace content), but placing self-made promotion in article space. Thanks for giving him the extra warning, though, just so he understands I'm not the only person who noticed him doing it. So far, after I got the second image deleted, he seems not to be repeating the earlier behavior, so that's fine so far. I can't help but suspect that it's temporary, however. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Josef Rokop

I have added the article as I found this link in wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rokop_J%C3%B3zsef&action=edit&redlink=1 and noted that there was no article on J. Rokop. I worked for J. Rokop at Rokop Corproation from 1975 through 2002 (under the names Techint & VAI Pomini from 1998 to 2002) and KNOW that he was a Hungarian freedom fighter and came from Sopron.

He was/is noteworthy because of his contributions to the worldwide steel industry in general and to continuous casting in particular.

Len SaboLen Sabo (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

First off, you should consult the notability guidelines. If you think the deleted article fulfills those guidelines, I suggest you contact the deleting admin, Orangemike (talk · contribs), and ask him to undelete the article, citing your reasoning. I will not overturn his decision without a very important and immediate reason to do so. Regards SoWhy 10:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about vandalism

Hi, how's it going?

I recently warned an anon editor for vandalizing a page, and reverted the edit as well. The editor then proceeded to mess with the code on my talk page, which I consider vandalism. Now, I didn't warn him for doing that, because I'm not sure it is appropriate. I mean, maybe it's seen as being impartial or something on my part... Is it? I'm not sure what to do. Should I warn him anyway? Should someone else?

I appreciate your input on this matter :)

Cheers –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 22:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: Now, I should ask for your input twice. –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 23:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, warn him again. User pages are part of the project in no other way than all other pages. Thus vandalizing them is to be treated just the same as with every other page and the same measures can and will be taken. I doubt anyone will think it a biased thing to do when you warn people for obvious vandalism. After all, if someone else had reverted it, they'd have done the same. Regards SoWhy 10:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind next time it happens. –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 21:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Match Attax

"SoWhy"? do you think Match Attax is of uttermost importance that it isn't speedily deleted from wikipedia? Does it contain encyclopedic content? Does it assert notability??? Why waste time with an AFD if we know what the Snowball outcome will be?Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't. That's why I !voted to delete it. I just declined speedy deletion because it does not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion, unlike the previous versions of that article. Speedy deletions under WP:SNOW should be very very rare, because that is exactly the reason why there is a set of restricted criteria and why someone tagged it for PROD. PROD was contested, so the correct venue is AFD. Letting the AfD run its course and deciding on it, will not only allow a clean delete if the consensus is delete but, in that case, allow SALTing to prevent future recreations or allow G4 deletions of it. Regards SoWhy 15:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

UN CSD tagging

Hi SoWhy

Thanks for your note.

I would like to understand what you mean by "assertion of notability can in most cases be derived from the positions the person held." Do you mean that by stating any position of responsibility is claim of notability? Where is the line drawn at what positions are inherently notable? WP:BIO#Diplomats seems to believe that notability does not derive from position alone, which led me to conclude that assertions of position for most diplomats are not assertions of notability for them, as no inference of notability under that criterion can be drawn. I would be particularly interested in how positions such as Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Strategic Planning, Assistant Secretary-General for General Assembly and Conference Management, or Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management could possibly give rise to an inference of notability. Could you please comment further?

Not that it's dispositive, but three other admins deleted other similar articles on my CSD nominations.

Rgds

Bongomatic (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:OSE is never a strong argument, so I do not really make other admins' decisions my own.

My point here was that any person that held a multitude positions of responsibility, in one case as I pointed out in my message even vice-president of a country, can be asserted to be notable. WP:BIO#Diplomats might still be correct and so the article might be deleted later on. But when it's not completely clear that no notability is asserted, then A7 is the wrong way to go. And as you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Alleyne, I could be right about those declinings.

And if I ain't, nothing is lost, because five days more for articles that exist for a month now, will not make a difference, but deleting them now when there is a chance that notability exists and is asserted, might lose us valuable information and scare away the creator of those articles. Regards SoWhy 12:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy

I know that "WP:OSE is never a strong argument" and that you "do not really make other admins' decisions my own", which is why I mentioned that the other admins' deletions were not dispositive.

I still don't understand what you believe to be an assertion of notability. If an article claims that X was the head of HR at one company, then another, then another, and is now is head of HR at a notable company, would you say that such claims, in and of themselves, constitute an assertion of notability?

WP:SPEEDY defines an "assertion of notability" as a "reasonable indication of why [the subject] might be notable". Your vice-president example is not apposite as such offices (as opposed to offices such as Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Strategic Planning is not only an obvious indication of why the subject might be notable (as well as an assertion that if true would with certainly be associated with "significant coverage in reliable [independent] sources", but is explicitly covered in WP:BIO#Politicians. Can you explain how the positions I mentioned above give an indication why the holders of such positions might be notable?

I don't have any issue with the AfD process per se, but the speedy process is designed precisely for situations such as this.

Rgds

Bongomatic (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the "beauty" of speedy deletion, the criteria, especially A7, rely heavily on interpretation. It is my understanding that deletions by admins should be an exception and admins should not delete borderline cases of notability without seeking consensus. Speedy deletion is a process for those articles that in no way should be kept, with very strict set of criteria. "Assertion of notability" is something that is always a rule-of-thumb-thing in my experience: counting that other new-page-patrollers did not nominate these articles for speedy deletion and that notability can be asserted through those positions (again, I do not say they are notable), I decided to decline it. Also, be careful with WP:BIO#Politicians on tagging for speedy deletion, articles without sources do not mean that assertion is not in the article. No sources means that the article can be deleted, but not automatically that it could be speedy deleted.

Feel free to take it to another admin for review if you think my judgment is flawed but I think you should just take it to AfD to weed out those which really need deletion. Regards SoWhy 13:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't really like forum shopping. But you still haven't explained in what possible way Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Strategic Planning would even be a borderline case. Where, in that instance, is any indication that the subject even "might" be notable? Why won't you address the merits of even one of the specific articles? Bongomatic (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it's not the one position. Secretary-General of the United Nations is notable, so his assistants may be notable as well because they do part of his work. For example, Robert C. Orr is not only Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Strategic Planning but was also once deputy to the United States Ambassador to the United Nations and other things. As I said above, I think speedy deletion is a very strict set of circumstances and should not applied when there is doubt. I laid out why I thought notability can be asserted, don't know what else to say about it. Can you name a specific case where you think this should be reconsidered? Regards SoWhy 16:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Weismann (car)

Hi SoWhy, I was just looking for sources for this article when I found it had been deleted. Surely saying that it's a manufacturer of luxury cars is an indication of importance/significance - people don't manufacture luxury cars in their bedrooms. This is the first source that I found. Please could you restore this so I can get on with some constructive editing? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops - I just noticed the spelling mistake in the article title (which was replicated in a picture caption in the source I found). We already have an article under the correct spelling, Wiesmann. Please ignore the above. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I googled the name and could not find any reliable sources and as I never heard of them myself, despite being German, I found the deletion appropriate. Interesting to see that it was a spelling mistake, hope you continue working on the topic. Regards SoWhy 16:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection request for List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 5)

Please see my comments on this matter here. I think another opinion may be needed. Dalejenkins | 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I am honored that you think my opinion worthy. I provided it as a note at above link. Regards SoWhy 21:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the welcome message! Shnitzled (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. If you need further help after reading those links, feel free to ask me. You might also want to consider adoption if you plan on staying with us for a while. Regards SoWhy 11:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

CSD declined

Hi SoWhy, I see that you declined to delete this article, on the basis that there was no prior Afd nom. This article was in fact, up for afd - and subsequently deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porscha coleman. Could you please re-review the CSD on the article. Thanks --Flewis^(talk) 12:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. For some reason the deletion log of that article does not list the AfD as a reason, but I do not know why the deleting admin failed to include this. I deleted it now of course. Please consider to use {{db-g4}} with the appropriate parameter in the future, linking the previous deletion discussion. Regards SoWhy 13:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Transparency (humanities)

We both agree that research is not compatible with the other items on the page, I can't split out the section because the new target page has the same name Transparency (research) as the current (wrong page name) we are discussing. Cheers Mion (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please consult the note I left you. From what I can see, the other editor on the subject wants to use another name instead. If he/she agrees to move it back, please ask him/her to write so on the talk page of the article and then use {{db-move}}, specifically mentioning this. Regards SoWhy 11:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the instructions, I opposed the first move and both alternative suggestions, the discussion is clearing up that we both agree that research is the problem in the story,, so moving it out is the option.Mion (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If so, moving should not be a problem. I left Mietchen a note about it. If he agrees on the move on the talk page, follow the instructions. Sorry, to make it complicated, but I want to avoid move-warring in case he disagrees and moves it back. Regards SoWhy 11:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't sorry, your style is correct, w'll see how it goes, thanks Mion (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

a question, if the redirect is deleted, the what links here are not linked to that page, but to a page with that name ? so moving another page to that name resores the what links here links? Mion (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Usually when you move a page, all redirects and links to the page are pointed to the new location. If there are still links to the redirect when it is deleted, they have to be removed manually.

As for this case, Mietchen opposes your proposal to move it back and split, so I will not do it at the moment, as admins should not use their "power" to further someone's viewpoint. I strongly suggest you open a request for comment on the talk page and get more community input to decide what to do. Regards SoWhy 13:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I promise to listen to proper hints the next time -:) Mion (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes!

Hi SoWhy! Thank you very much for reverting the vandalism to my userpage just now. And . . . where did it come from? Haven't done anything to irritate that address, not that I'm aware of, haven't even been active here for several days! Bizarre. Anyway, thanks, I appreciate it! Maedin\^talk 14:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Sometimes those IPs are from a blocked editor or IP that you reverted before. Just ignore it. ;-) SoWhy 16:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :)

[3] Most kind. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. I am glad to see that you are back in action :-) SoWhy 19:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

UCLICK

Good afternoon,

Today I submitted an article on UCLICK. I believe it was rejected because of the notability claim. I believe I can correct this. Would it be at all possible to send me the article so that I can make changes?

Thank you, Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prich311 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Your page was not deleted but redirected to Andrews McMeel Universal by the deciding admin. You can review the former revisions using the history here. Just click on the date and time of the old version where the content was still in the article. Regards SoWhy 18:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Detroit Lions semi-protection

For the record, (1) I didn't know about the RFPP until after the user requested it on my user page and then I protected it, (2) I do not care for the Detroit Lions; I'm more of a Buffalo Bills watcher if any team; (3) sorry for over-ruling you without notice, and (4) I would still have semi-protected it, as there were continuing vandalism from 3 different IP addresses in a single day. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I go with Tan's answer here. When you request it first at an admin's talk page and then twice at RFPP, you have three different admins replying. It is much likely that one of them grants it then. But I suggest you check RFPP in the future when someone comes directly to you. I do not want to sound patronizing, but I think we should try to prevent such cases from happening, because it might look as if admin-shopping works. Regards SoWhy 19:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

STC

I don't understand why my edited page on the Singerling Theatrical Co. was deleted. All of the provided information was true. Please contact me regarding this via e-mail: <E-Mail removed> Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.237.235.99 (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see the messages left to the account that created the article. The information does not only have to be true, more over the subject needs to be of some notability. The article you mention did not even indicate why the subject was to be considered notable and was thus deleted. Regards SoWhy 06:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Venga Airways

why did u delete venga airways —Preceding unsigned comment added by Help1523 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it did not assert why the company is to be considered notable, please see criterion A7 for speedy deletion. Regards SoWhy 06:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Block of Ehausler (talk · contribs)

Hi!

You blocked the above editor after he was reported to AIV for vandalism on Papa Dee. I think he deserved a block but I disagree with an indef block as a vandalism only account because the issue was really a content dispute.

If you want to peruse through the recent history of Papa Dee, you will see that there has been a fair amount of edit warring over a single paragraph having to do with his arrest and subsequent conviction on domestic abuse which even caused the article to be semi-protected at one point. One of Ehausler's first edits on that article was this removal of the controversial paragraph in which he stated his reasons for deletion. Since then, he was one of many editors who blatantly edit warred over the same issue. Yesterday, I issued a 3RR warning to him and Nisken (talk · contribs) for having made 7 reverts each within the last 24 hours. Nisken took my warning seriously and stopped edit warring and started discussing the issue with myself and another editor in a most civilized manner for which I commended him. Ehausler, however, continued edit warring.

Ehausler most definitely deserves a 24h block for 3RR/edit warring but I don't believe his edits were made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia and I, therefore, find the indefinite block for vandalism to be too harsh. He was one of the many edit warriors on that article within the last few weeks and he should be prevented from causing further damage to the article for the time being but we should also assume good faith that he meant to help the project by protecting an article from a perceived WP:BLP violation, no matter how misguided his attempts were.

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If you browse through their contributions, you will see that all contributions were exactly the same edit, i.e. removing a certain section from the paragraph. Content disputes are one thing, but to continue to remove content after a level 4 warning to stop it and a refusal to talk about the issue, leaves not much room for good faith assumptions. After all, removing content without discussion over and over again does constitute vandalism and if the account does only do so, it does only vandalism and is thus a vandalism account. I took into account that they might try to prevent BLP violations, but that would imply that everyone else reverting them is actively pushing a BLP violation, which is highly unlikely, especially for a paragraph of text that is sourced plenty and as far as I can see does not violate WP:BLP.

The distinction I drew is between someone who edit-wars over an issue and someone who ONLY edit-wars over an issue. 3RR blocks help for editors that we can assume are only easily excited about a certain topic. In this case we have an editor that did no other edits (not even deleted) outside this topic. As I said above, the removals after warnings to stop and discuss, are to be considered vandalism. The fact that there only were such edits makes it "only". Combine it and you get an account used only for vandalism. Regards SoWhy 18:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: But as I am an admin newbie, I will ask another admin for input. I could be wrong after all. ;-)

BLP concerns here - the account may be connected so we must be careful. My suggestion is to not unblock at the moment but remove the block notice and ask the account if they will address their concerns at Talk:Papa Dee and not edit the article until the concern is rectified by the community. If they will agree then immediate unblock on the understanding that edits to that section of the article will result in another block. If they do not reply wait a while and ask again (24 hours maybe?), again offering unblock. Better that than we get a sock. Pedro :  Chat  18:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...while I still think my assessment is justifiable, I think Pedro makes a good suggestion. The user mailed me in the mean time, explaining the issues they have with the article. I offered them to lift the block according to Pedro's advice, if they agree to stop edit-warring over the issue. I will unblock them if they agree to discuss the issue. Thanks for the input, Pedro. SoWhy 19:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with Pedro too. If he's willing to discuss the issue, an unblock is not unreasonable.

Thanks for listeninig and thank you Pedro for your input. Always appreciated.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

User has agreed to discuss issue and I unblocked him with the appropriate message on the talk page. Regards SoWhy 09:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Good job - well handled. I think you might mean unconstructive editing in your unblock message :) Pedro :  Chat  09:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Argh, stupid typos...thanks for pointing it out. And thanks for the kind words and your help! :-) SoWhy 09:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Allways welcome! Pedro :  Chat  09:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for listening and thank you, Pedro, for the input. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all for handling this situation in a proper way! Nsaa (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)