User talk:Toon05/Archive 4

Another second opinion request

This one is much less complicated, I think.

The blanked portion of Multinational corporation. Google books, beginning with the section "Structural and natural market imperfections." Some close paraphrase, some duplication. Contributor does not feel that the several paragraphs duplicated from the source represent "extensive quotation" (leaving aside the fact that there are no quotation marks to be found). Some discussion here. More here. Can you spare a moment to offer an opinion? It would be appreciated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'll come over and take a look in a bit, I've just stumbled upon an IP editor who's been adding copied plot summaries to Doctor Who articles. – Toon^(talk) 13:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

lovely. You need any help with the cleanup? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully after a review of their contribs it looks like the vast majority are good edits - only a few big additions. Hopefully they've not got an account with another few thousand edits to check... – Toon^(talk) 14:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Perish the thought. :) I used to have fun on Wikipedia before I started having to give all my time to massive infringement cleanup. It was once my goal to create all of the missing notable album encyclopedia articles from our list. I haven't written one of those in weeks. :/ </self pity> --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Dvibert (talk · contribs) - 600 edits since 2006. I see some have been cleaned, but they are going to need checking. Urgh. As well as the massive backlog I've left at SCV... teach me to go and do stuff in real life. If you have a spare pair of eyes? – Toon^(talk) 14:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I do. And we can always ask Dcoetzee for a list, if needed. Let me get started. :) (I'll start at the bottom, so our efforts don't overlap.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Thanks! – Toon^(talk) 14:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, definitive infringement seems to have started in March 2007. There were a few sentences before that which are suspect, but never added in great quantity. Even then, everything I've found so far has been wiped out by subsequent edits. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's similar story here, although the IP address (clearly the same user) was re-adding the plot summaries after they were removed as copyright infringements form articles created by Dvibert. I am somewhat reassured about how few infringements have remained in place - reflects well on the community and the checks we have in place. – Toon^(talk) 14:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

←Just to update you, I just completed through September 19, 2007. Forging ahead. (Meanwhile, input in that other page still requested. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've worked down to the beginning of 2008, and found and removed a few remaining infringements. Seems to be limited to articles they created and a couple of other plot sections. The worrying part is the IP actively replacing it. Anyway, I'll go and take a look at your feedback request. – Toon^(talk) 15:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be done, then, as I've just finished 2007. Crazy, the back and forth copying in these fields! There were a lot of texts that might have been copied from elsewhere, but the elsewhere turned out (via dating there or Wayback) to have copied from us. No respect for intellectual property in some circles. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, if you're not familiar with it, we have {{Plot2}}. I have no idea if it helps, but it saves time explaining the removal at the talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you place it there, I wasn't aware of it. Seems useful! – Toon^(talk) 20:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I wouldn't have blanked that section myself if I'd have known you would still be online. Quite late in your part of the world, no? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not worried - thanks for clarifying. I thought I'd try and make inroads at SCV - only 1am, I've become somewhat nocturnal after years of uni-fuelled excess, lol. Think that's enough for one night, mind you. – Toon^(talk) 00:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Bolton protection

I'm not sure protecting Bolton Wanderers F.C. is the right thing to do at the moment. It's the article I normally catch Albbbbeeeennnnoooo's sock vandalising. This allows me to tag them, add them to the SI report and revert all their vandalism to all the other articles they target. John Sloan (view / chat) 18:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Its a tough one. I did consider this - my thinking was that because it's his primary focus of vandalism, depriving him of the ability to edit it may make him stop... but I was probably being a little optimistic. I've removed the protection. – Toon^(talk) 18:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your reasoning. But I cant really see and end to this guy anytime soon. this confirms that the 91.110 IP is also Albbbbeeeennnnoooo (who i'm going to call Albeno from now on because i'm getting fed up of calling him Albbbbeeeennnnoooo! LOL) Cheers John Sloan (view / chat) 18:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I blocked the IP after that edit. I'm going to file an abuse report with his ISP, hopefully they'll do something about it. – Toon^(talk) 18:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A Shearer.

hi Toon. I was gonna revert it , its a very subtle form of vandalism ..just altering a few numbers ...easy to miss .. I am unsure now as 3 or 4 edits have gone since how to revert just that one edit? would I just undo that one ? have a look and let me know how I could have done it? the edit is .. [1] . (Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

done. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

I see the undo worked. It can be a bit dodgy sometimes, usually if the edit is in a different section to subsequent ones it's do-able. – Toon^(talk) 23:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Gideon Levy (journalist)

The other Gideon Levy is a Dutch film director for the public service broadcaster VPRO whose output includes a documentary 'Lockerbie revisited' which was broadcast in Holland on the eve of the start of Mr Megrahi's second appeal in April 2009 (see http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/41867169/). On the VPRO website there are links to June 2005 interviews by Gideon Levy (film director) featuring Dr Jim Swire and Robert Black (professor) (see http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/22635723/items/22716459/). Perhaps you would like to create an article on Gideon Levy (film director) and reinstate the Gideon Levy disambig page that was deleted earlier today.---PJHaseldine (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be more than happy to restore the dab page when an article about another Gideon Levy is created. :) – Toon^(talk) 23:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Gideon Levy (film director) has now been created as a redirect. Please restore the dab page.---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:DAB, disambiguation pages should point to articles of that name, not redirect to different articles. I'll restore when an article is created on the subject, or a consensus for restoration is reached at Talk:Gideon Levy. – Toon^(talk) 22:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Since Gideon Levy (film director)'s main claim to fame is his documentary entitled "Lockerbie revisited", I am probably precluded by my edit ban from creating his biography. So I'll have to leave that task to someone else!---PJHaseldine (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah. In that case it's probably best not to create the article! If/when the article does get created, I don't mind moving the pages back. Best, – Toon^(talk) 14:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping!

Thanks for helping on WP:SPI. You get a cookie! —— nixeagle^{email me} 17:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Are there any white chocolate chip ones left? – Toon^(talk) 19:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Another one

Another albeno IP. This guy seriously has no life! John Sloan @ 19:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. I can't imagine it being rewarding, considering all of his edits get reverted straight away. Oh well. – Toon^(talk) 19:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! Do I just add that script to my monobook.js or create a new subpage called mass rollback.js? John Sloan @ 20:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Add it to the bottom of your monobook.js – Toon^(talk) 20:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do! Hopefully it'll make dealing with this guy easier. Cheers :-) John Sloan @ 20:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I take it you've just tested the mass revert button? :D John Sloan @ 21:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it was a terrible, terrible decision! – Toon^(talk) 21:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hehehe, I used an alternate account and the sandbox for mine! Looks like a very useful but dangerous tool. John Sloan @ 21:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

User page

Thanks for your reversion. Not sure why you undid yourself, though... - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I accidentally used mass rollback on my contribs list - which meant that I had to go back and undo each and every rollback. Not my finest moment :) – Toon^(talk) 21:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest Toon, did it just rollback the contribs on the first page or every edit that it physically could rollback? John Sloan @ 23:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Just the visible edits on the contribs page. If you switch it to the 500 view, for example, it'll rollback all 500 (if they're fresh edits, of course). Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the first page (which was on 500 in my case) – Toon^(talk) 23:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well thats something I suppose! Imagine if it tried to rollback every edit you've ever made :O John Sloan @ 23:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha, it took me long enough to undo all those sodding rollbacks! – Toon^(talk) 23:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jasoncobble/Archive

This is just FYI as I've reported this to AIV, but I'm afraid he's back already. The edit history and personal attacks make it abundantly clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him, Beeblebrox; was obvious from his contributions that, at minimum, he is a meatpuppet. If you could go and tag up his user/talk page? This is gonna be my last edit for a while; there's too much nastiness here. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 05:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Beeblebrox.. looks like my good faith was a tad misplaced. – Toon^(talk) 14:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Albeno

That mass rollback button has just been used for the first time to fight mr albeno. His latest IP: Special:Contributions/91.109.71.26. John Sloan @ 15:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice, I'm glad it's coming in useful, should save a fair amount of time. Blocked. – Toon^(talk) 15:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you file a report with his ISP? Thanks for the zap, no doubt he'll be back tomorrow :-( John Sloan @ 19:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't file one in the end, I got bamboozled by all of the red tape over at WP:ABUSE, and then distracted. I'll go and do that now, actually. – Toon^(talk) 19:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll actually be offline for most of tomorrow (Bolton are at home to Sunderland)! No doubt you'll also be supporting Bolton tomorrow :D - Anyway, if you're online, can you keep an eye out for more Albeno socks? Also, if you want me to send his ISP an email backing you up, just ask! :-) John Sloan @ 19:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Your team have my full backing mate, show the Mackems who's boss! I'll keep an eye when I'm online. I already have Bolton Wanderers watchlisted. – Toon^(talk) 19:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice one! This guy has to get bored of this soon... John Sloan @ 19:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ministers for Public Works of Luxembourg

Why did you remove the links to Minister for Public Works of Luxembourg? Given that you have unilaterally speedy-deleted the article to which it links, I cannot tell whether your justification for deleting said article is valid. However, you have not given a justification for deleting the links, which are very useful to constructive editors and had been extant for almost three years in some cases. Please could you explain the content of the article that you speedy-deleted and, in any event, undo the deletion of the redlinks? Bastin 04:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The backlinks were an unfortunate byproduct of deleting a spate of vandalism involving swastikas. The article was certainly not one which had anything to do with the Minister for Public Works of Luxembourg, it was merely a title (I was quite careful to check during my crazy unilateral speedy deletion ;). I am sorry that you cannot personally judge whether I was acting in bad faith, but I can tell you that all of the articles created by the users contained just the following two images: File:Willys-Knight1920.jpg and File:Flag of Germany 1933.svg. If you'd like, you can start a WP:DRV, just to make sure that my unilateral deletion wasn't actually me suddenly vandalising the encyclopedia. Thanks, – Toon^(talk) 13:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if you think I was accusing you of vandalism. I was merely suggesting that esoteric articles are sometimes deleted in the belief that they have no value, when they do to other people - which has happened to stub articles about towns in Luxembourg before. I don't think for a second that an article about Nazi Zombie Ministers from beyond the moon/Luxembourg is valuable. Bastin 14:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's ok, I did snap at you there, I apologise. – Toon^(talk) 15:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Hi, could I get your opinion on two users I think could be the same person?

• Special:Contributions/NickelodeonFan95
• Special:Contributions/RetroNickelodeonFan

Obviously they have similar usernames, but they also have similar editing patterns. Retro started editing just a few hours after 95's last edit. Most edits appear to be genuine, but some have been reverted by others as problematic. If they are the same person, is s/he in violation of policy? Any advice you can offer would be great! Cheers John Sloan @ 23:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha, the names ring alarm bells, I'll take a look at their contribs. – Toon^(talk) 23:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd bet my house that they are the same user. As far as I can see, however, they aren't in violation of WP:SOCK; I can't see any tag-teaming or other abuse. They've only edited three of the same articles, and don't seem to be trying to manipulate consensus or anything else. It looks a legit sock at the moment, but if they start supporting one another then it becomes an issue. – Toon^(talk) 23:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll keep an eye on them. Hopefully this is just a case of a newbie wanting a different username without realising they can change it at WP:CHU! Goodnight :-) John Sloan @ 23:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) – Toon^(talk) 00:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

He has created another account -- Special:Contributions/RetroNickelodeonFan2 -- Although he admits the accounts are his and has not been disruptive with them, I still think an admin note about the correct use of alternate accounts might be in order. I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to account hop like this! Cheers John Sloan @ 12:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go take a look. – Toon^(talk) 12:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Left him a (hopefully) friendly message about it. – Toon^(talk) 13:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me! John Sloan @ 13:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

And we have another one! Special:Contributions/Logoboy95forever, he gave himself away by removing a comment from the NickFan95 talk page AND removing your comment on Retro2's talk page! I think this guy could be building a sock army here whilst making seemingly good faith edits. I can see this guy turning disruptive, in fact, i'd call the creation of this latest account after whats been said by you and others downright disruptive. Oh, btw, congrats on your result tonight! I guess you'll be supporting Bolton again next saturday as we look to down Hull! :D John Sloan @ 23:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

←I've blocked three accounts — I can't think of any legit reason for one user to operate four autoconfirmed accounts — and raised the issue at WP:AN. Yeah, frankly I'm shocked that we managed to pull a win out of the bag! Once again I'm counting on Bolton to do us a favour, but we still need to win against Fulham and at least get a point at Villa Park. Hopefully we can stay up! – Toon^(talk) 13:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it'll be WBA, Boro & Hull now! I'll participate in that WP:AN discussion as well since i'm involved here. I personally think you've done the right thing, this user is clearly up to something! John Sloan @ 14:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a little worried about WBA actually, they've started winning, and are now level on points with Boro, despite being stranded all season - I can't really see Hull being able to stop the rot, and hopefully Sunderland won't get any more points this season... it's definitely going to be tight. Hopefully Davies can score a couple to beat Hull and earn me some fantasy league points too!

I don't see how it can be anything other than suspicious to have four accounts, personally... who knows when he would have stopped, when we were drowning in a sea of socks! – Toon^(talk) 14:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

WBA have Liverpool next though. I just cant see them doing the great escape this time! Newcastle will stay up, i've always thought so, just didnt think you'd leave it this late :D - An IP's pointed out some more possible socks at WP:AN, but I don't personally believe they are NickFan's! John Sloan @ 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Isles Internationale Université (European Union)

Dear Toon05:

Thanks a lot; I'll be waiting for this to take place. Best Regards--Jose Carlos Arias (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As requested, I have forwarded copyright authorisation text again to permissions-en@wikipedia.org from my e-mail account linked to the Université (vc@iiuedu.eu); I hope this will finish sorting out all requirements needed to remove the copyright infringement suspicion warning from this article's content. Please, whenever you are ready, let me know if you will remove the warning, or if I am supposed to do so after you agree to it.

Thank you for your invaluable collaboration to our article´s content integrity.

Best regards--Jose Carlos Arias (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind answer and efforts on verifying permission. I will ask my assistant to forward you the same e-mail content from an Isles Internationale Université's e-mail address first thing tomorrow. Nevertheless, if it should be of any help, please access the www.iiuedu.eu website, section Vice-Chancellor's Welcome, where I address the academic community regarding the Université's profile expalnation and mission. This section links myself to the Université as its academic head. You can also access my curriculum at the same website, section Staff Members, where I am appointed as Vice-Chancellor (Rector) of the Université.

Thank you again for your relevant work.

--Jose Carlos Arias (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Toon05:

I strongly beleive your work to be of highest relevance to keep Wikipedia's content integrity; thank you very much for your service.

As requested at your Copyright message placed in article refered above, I have forwarded explanation and owner's copyrights full approval for use and reprodution regharding text's content in this article; I also incuded coment and copy of communication forwarded to permissions-en@wikipedia.org within discussion secrtion of the article, and also included copy of answer received from permissions-en@wikipedia.org, which included Ticket#2009050610018874.

I would very much appreciate your help on removing the copyright warning you kindly placed instead of article's content as soon as possible; if there should be any additional requirement to fulfil before this may take place, plese let me know to: <redacted>; if I should remove this warning myself, please also let me know this to proceed.

Thank you in advance.--Jose Carlos Arias (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Input to article paraphrasing

Would you please respond to Talk:Arthur Ducat#Adequate paraphrasing. The original editor had already made changes when I brought this to their attention. I have not looked at the article since their change and may not, due to inexperience, be able to say that the changes were adequate. Pknkly (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pknkly, I've replied to your email; I'll also take a look at the article first thing when I log on tomorrow. Thanks for keeping a watchful eye, by the way! – Toon^(talk) 21:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed the issue on the talk page. – Toon^(talk) 14:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Lift from Wiki - confirm and recommendations

I'm pretty sure the Wiki article Architecture of Chicago#History was lifted to an external article ( http://www.american-architecture.info/USA/CHICAGO/CHIC.htm#History ) because the history for the Wiki article shows a pausable evolution of the article (i.e., it doesn't just simply appear one day and be a copy of the external article). Does an organization have any obligation to cite Wiki? As long as you are looking into this, would you please affirm that the lift was from Wiki? Should I leave a message in the Talk to notify other editors about the lift so (1)they don't waist time confirming that the Wiki article was not lifted from an external source or (2) that the external source should not be used as a reference because it is Wiki? Pknkly (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they've taken it from Wikipedia, as you can see, this Nov 2007 version of the website has different material on it, when the current material was already on WP. A note on the article's talk page would be useful for those reasons. Sites should always cite WP when using our content, but only a major contributor to the article can really write to the site, as it's their rights being infringed and work being plagiarised. Best, – Toon^(talk) 14:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and instructions. I'll post the message on the Talk page. Pknkly (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

At least he gave us a few days off!

Special:Contributions/91.110.16.197 - I've reverted his edits so far and I will tag it now. John Sloan @ 21:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Already done :). – Toon^(talk) 21:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thumbs up! John Sloan @ 21:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Polykastro

Thank you for protecting the page, hopefully the dispute can be resolved ASAP. PMK1 (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully! – Toon^(talk) 14:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Image

thumb|center|455px

Could I ask of you to delete this image, it was used on the 30 Seconds to Mars article, but the problem is that this is a promo photo which is subject to copyright as they all are. - GunMetal Angel 17:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it. I'm not well versed in our image policies, but I'll have a mosey. – Toon^(talk) 17:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess you've now finished "looking into it", haha. - GunMetal Angel

Yep! :) – Toon^(talk) 17:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, could you protect this article? It is being vandalized so much to the point where the vandalism leaks in-between reverting. - GunMetal Angel

Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. – Toon^(talk) 20:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Why only three days?? - GunMetal Angel 17:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Because stopping people editing an article is a bad thing. There were productive edits from anons in there; I'll see how bad the situation is when the protection ends. – Toon^(talk) 17:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess you are technically right, because if that article was protected from to say three month ago up to this point it wouldn't even have this section. - GunMetal Angel 21:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

NickFan tagging

After seeing what he's done tonight, its pretty obvious he is only here to cause trouble! If its okay with you, i'm going to start tagging his accounts (best to start keeping track IMO) John Sloan @ 21:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol, probably a good idea. Turns out he's the indeffed Logoboy95 (talk · contribs). I've asked for a quick checkuser to block the underlying IP to stop him creating accounts. – Toon^(talk) 21:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, a troll from as far back as 2005! Do you want me to wait until we can establish his original account before tagging, or do you want me to tag them all as socks of his 05 account? John Sloan @ 21:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The Logoboy95 looks like the first one, I'm not filing a full SPI because the accounts are all already blocked. – Toon^(talk) 21:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, i'll get tagging then! John Sloan @ 21:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we got em' all :D John Sloan @ 21:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

For now anyway! – Toon^(talk) 21:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

this one isn't blocked though! John Sloan @ 21:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Talk:Yahweh ben Yahweh

A sub page was created and a link placed on the talk page. I copied the information from the sub-page and pasted them instead of the link on the talk page. Now how do I get the sub-page deleted so that there is not a glaring hole in the WPBIOG banner?

JimCubb (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Re on AfD

Hmm... I'm not entirely certain myself actually. I think I was at that stage caught up in a lot of confusion over how one case was deemed notable but another wasn't and perhaps tangled myself up there. There seemed to be a lot of individual interpretation of the rules with one person being able to swing one way and another person in a different way, which might have been where the POV came in. I don't think there was anything offensive meant towards yourself or your viewpoint (it seems more of a general point really) but I sincerely apologise if it was read in that way. --candle•wicke 23:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, you're welcome. Oh, identity theft... grr... ;) --candle•wicke 23:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Water supply and sanitation in Ecuador

Today you posted two templates concerning possible copyright infringements in Water supply and sanitation in Ecuador. Please specify which sentences of the article you believe to have been used from http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2006/01/06/000104615_20060109102335/Rendered/INDEX/PID060106.txt in infrigement of copyrights, so that the allegation can be checked, and if it should be justified, the issue can be fixed. I would also appreciate if in the future you could post any concerns first on the talk page of the article, specifying which sentences may constitute a copyright infrigement, before placing large templates in the article itself.--Mschiffler (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Toon05, I am still waiting for a reply concerning the post above. After reviewing your blanking again and comparing it with the earlier version, it seems that you refer to the lead section, the section on efficiency and the section on investment and financing. Concerning the lead section, I have rewritten it. Concerning the sections on efficiency as well as investment and financing, I suggest that you check them again and that you consider removing the templates or provide a more detailed justification for placing them there. Again, in the future, please report concerns first on the talk page.--Mschiffler (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Mschiffler, I am well aware that I haven't yet responded to your message. As a volunteer (like yourself), I address tasks on Wikipedia when I have time to spare in real life. There is a framework in place for dealing with situations where content has been copied from external sources, to prevent Wikipedia from hosting plagiarised content, or otherwise violating copyrights. Unfortunately, you do not seem to appreciate the problematic nature of the issues which have resulted from some of your edits; if I discover more violations when reviewing more of your edits, I will be blanking those sections as well — this will prevent Wikipedia mirrors from picking up the content when using updated material, and also stop Wikipedia from displaying plagiarised content. Frankly, given the fact that you have studied to PhD level, I find the scope of the plagiarism problems astounding. It is not merely an issue of how likely it is that the Wikimedia Foundation be sued, but an issue of academic ethics. Thankfully, we have a very accommodating (and capable) admin who takes care of a large amount of the copyright problems which present themselves, as you can tell, my patience is more limited than hers. Given the amount of work your edits have created for others (who need to go through all of your contributions rooting out issues), I find the disdain you have shown here to be deeply disappointing. You should note that it is not acceptable to use others' work without permission, nor is it sufficient to simply alter content and submit it. The following are problematic in the short sections I have blanked.

Compare the article:

Labour productivity in water supply and sanitation is generally difficult to guess in small municipalities, where the service is frequently carried out directly by municipal governments in conjunction with other services. Nevertheless, between 5 and 14 employees per 1000 connections are estimated in medium sized towns, a number well in excess of best regional practices (below 3 employees per 1000 connections).

to the source:

While WSS service efficiency is often difficult to estimate in small municipalities (where they are often provided directly by the municipal government in conjunction with other services), many municipal water companies in medium-size cities have between 5 and 14 employees/1000 water connections, a number well in excess of regional best practice (below 3 employees/1000 water connections).

Compare:

Financing for urban and rural water supply investments is provided by a multitude of national and sub-national actors under different terms and conditions. Some favour participation by users and municipalities, but the majority provide assistance without requiring any contributions (assistencialismo) in a clientelistic manner, underestimating the importance of participation to reach sustainability of services.

to

A multitude of national and sub-national actors (Fondo de Solidaridad, the Banco del Estado (BdE), FISE, regional development corporations, various government ministries, provincial and municipal governments etc.) provide financing for urban and rural water supply investments under different terms and with little regard for the policy-setting role legally vested in the Sub-Secretary of Water Supply, Sanitation and Solid Waste (SAPSyRS) of the Ministry of Urban Development, Housing and Territorial Development (MIDUVI).

Compare:

However, in 2001 the government took a bold step to improve Ecuador’s incentive framework for water and sanitation investments by adopting an Executive Decree on national government transfers to municipalities earmarked to WSS investment under a special tax on telephone calls (Impuesto sobre Consumos Especiales, ICE). The level of the transfers is higher for poorer municipalities, and – most notably – higher for those that improve operator performance or choose to delegate service provision to autonomous operators. The system of sub-national transfers thus provides incentives to improve both performance and more sustainable institutional arrangements at the local level.

to

Finally, the government has taken a bold step to improve Ecuador�s incentive framework for WSS investments by adopting an Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 2562 published on 21 February, 2005) that links national government transfers to municipalities under a special tax on telephone calls that is earmarked for WSS investments (Impuesto sobre Consumos Especiales,ICE) to operator performance, service model and poverty indicators. In addition, a draft Water and Sanitation Sector Law has been prepared. Given unstable political conditions over the past several years, however, it has yet to be presented to Congress.

I hope the issues have been made clear. – Toon^(talk) 22:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Toon 5, I certainly appreciate that you work as a volunteer on Wikipedia, and that this means that we can't always quickly respond to posts. You write that you find the "disdain you have shown here to be deeply disappointing". These are strong words. You come to these strong conclusions, I assume, without knowing the context for this and related articles. For example, you write that the Wikimedia foundation is likely to be sued for copyright violations because of this article. I assume again that you mean sued by the World Bank, the holder to the copyright of the text you mentioned? You may want to consult this information:http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/LACEXT/0,,contentMDK:21871403~pagePK:146736~piPK:146830~theSitePK:258554,00.html. As part of that project the World Bank makes factual information from its analytical work available to the general public on Wikipedia, abiding by Wikipedia's rules. In some cases, it does take help from experienced Wikipedia users, such as Moonriddengirl or you, to fully abide by all of these rules. The Wikimedia Foundation is aware of the project and the page you have partially blanked is part of it. Your remarks were made, I presume, without knowledge of the project. With this knowledge, I hope that the issues highlighted above can be resolved more constructively. One way of doing this is to provide more references and to rewrite sections following suggestions made by Moonriddengirl, as it has already been done for the lead section of "Water supply and sanitation in Ecuador". But I am open to other suggestions. And I am interested in your reaction to the new lead section. I also hope that I have not upset you by anything I wrote. This was certainly not my intention.--Mschiffler (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my point was that it's not simply about protecting Wikipedia from being sued; nonetheless, I was not aware of the World Bank's involvement and I apologise for the veracity of my response, I was irritated by the comments you made; I usually do not allow myself to succumb to such feelings on Wikipedia. I'm glad that the issues are being combated, and I will bear the information in mind during my work here. Best, – Toon^(talk) 11:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am very glad to see that we now agree on the context and, it seems, on the substance of the issue at hand. I am sorry I caused you so much work comparing documents and feel that I should have provided you more context earlier on. While I am aware that your time is limited, given that we are all volunteers and that we have a life beyond Wikipedia, I would appreciate if at some time you could take a look at my rewrite of the lead section and see if the template at the beginning of the article could be removed in light of the rewritten section. Once that is done I will work on the other sections, providing more references and clearly highlighting any sections that have been quoted.--Mschiffler (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll happily take a look at your work over the next day or so, I am a little busy IRL at the moment, so my wiki-work is suffering. Best, – Toon^(talk) 12:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sock wars

Special:Contributions/Nickelodeon1995returns - I've reverted all his edits so far and tagged his userpage. John Sloan @ 09:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked! – Toon^(talk) 13:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/91.109.107.31 - Football vandal this time, all edits so far reverted! John Sloan @ 20:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, bit delayed, but he's now blocked. – Toon^(talk) 12:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! John Sloan @ 19:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing the problem (You could see that John Sloan acted in hurry, me too )![2].

Would you mind helping me deleting the secondary account "Quedorme" (created by my daughter from the same computer?) thanks Rirunmot (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Toon (You may notice that there was no problem before John Sloan sent to my address the two WRONG ACCUSATIONS )

Now, thanks to you one will learn how not to react to false accusations..

Thank you for information. By the way, if you delete the user page, the account will be cleared won't it? In this case please do it , with all my gratefulness Rirunmot (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Re your note at WT:SPI

Hey, not that I'm disagreeing with you, but the question at WT:SPI is about pages like User talk:81.184.253.185 where multiple instances of the tag are being used to refer to each confirmed sock of a single sockmaster in addition to the sockmaster him/herself. If you'd already understood that, and just wanted to comment in general, please excuse me for disturbing you. :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I did get that, but I was a little concerned about fl saying "...and only when the IP is going to be the subject of an SPI case (tagging and not reporting makes no logical sense)." - this seemed to be a more general statement which may have worrying consequences. Not sure if that was how it was intended, but I thought it better to speak up now than later! – Toon^(talk) 15:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Couple of things please

This users' edit's violate Template:Infobox Musical artist; I would recommend a mass revert and then a warning about changing genres. If you don't think this is the correct play, then could you please at least revert to this version on DG's article? This guy seems to be ignoring the hidden messages in the proceeding edit. Also, seeing as I've been noticing that you're a SPI geek... I'm gonna throw this baby at you (Not a real baby): LtS and ZS... They love to add associated acts, right? A quick snoop through their contribs brings up some large similarities. By the way, that diff on the Steve Jocz article is ZS' first edit... pretty good for a first edit, wouldn't you agree? Just reply here and I'll see it eventually. Thanks in advance. 86.3.61.125 (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to look into this over the next few days, but I'm pretty busy IRL at the moment, so if you need a quicker response, you might want to consider talking to the user or approaching another admin. Best, – Toon^(talk) 12:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Article

I think I'm going to need Lacuna Coil to be protected once more, or at least for you to keep an eye on it, it's constantly vandalized by removing a sourced genre from the infobox. And once the month-long protection ended, it started up again by an IP address user that uses multiple IP addresses. - GunMetal Angel 14:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to the IP about it? I'm hesitant to keep the page semi protected unless other options are exhausted. – Toon^(talk) 15:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually a faithful user has actually made a valid discussion with me, thankfully this is now technically over. But, there is another problem with a different article, take a look at Underoath. • GunMetal Angel 19:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have dropped off now. – Toon^(talk) 19:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

On the history now the latest edit is by a registered user reverting more IP vandalism and the description for it is "rv, this page needs to be semi-protected"[3] . - GunMetal Angel 14:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. – Toon^(talk) 16:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

The Toon.

hey Toon, Sorry about that NUFC today.I have supported a team in the championship and it is an exciting league and winning matches and winning the league as I'm sure you will is good fun. I added a bit about the relegation and removed some uncited stuff , I did that really to stop anyone adding uncited stuff about it , you are more than welcome to remove it and insert a better story when you want . I'm sure tonight there will be a lot of hits and I,ve got my eye on it for vandalism. Regards (Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

I'm sure your edits are fine. And hey, at least this means we'll be getting rid of a lot of the dead weight at the club: Barton, Owen etc. We'll be back! – Toon^(talk) 19:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Toon, i've logged into my alt. account from a friends computer just to offer you my commiserations! I see you're trying to look at this in a positive light. Being honest, Newcastle do NEED massive changes. Hopefully, this will get the ball rolling for those changes! You will be back, stronger than ever before. PS - I hope you don't sell Barton to us, I know Megsons been talking about making an offer! Hopefully you will sell him to Blackburn instead! ;) John Sloan 3 (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Pardon the stalkingI just saw that comment while making another one - hopefully we'll sell Barton to a glue factory ☺ Tonywalton ^Talk 22:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks. Unfortunately, relegation has made more difficult the biggest change which (IMO) needs to take place at the club - that of ownership and senior management. We need an administration who will provide stability to the club both financially and at managerial level. *Sigh*. Well, all I can say is that you'll hopefully have better luck with the guy than the rest of his clubs have, if you do sign him. He's a decent player, and you probably wouldn't have to pay much more than £1m for him, if that much. Bargain basement prices for some decent (if uncommitted and largely past their peak) players. At least it's a cheap season ticket next season. – Toon^(talk) 22:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection on Newcastle United F.C.

I've dropped the protection period from your "infinite" down to two weeks. Hopefully by then the sneerers will have found something else to sneer about. Regards, Tonywalton ^Talk 22:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I made it indef so that we don't lose the move-protection when it expires (which was apparently unnecessary, actually!). I didn't really look at why it was move protected mind, so perhaps it won't be needed anyway. But yeah, I have no problem with the call. (And I would pay large sums of money to anyone willing to do anything which takes Barton away from our mess of a club), – Toon^(talk) 22:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it move protection doesn't expire when semiprot does. No matter. Looking on the bright side, I live about 17 miles from the Keepmoat, so I'll get to see Owen Martins, er, Barton? locally. Why do we keep buying complete plonkers? Maybe this will focus some minds at board level. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see talk Alan Shearer.

Would you have a look , ta . [[4]]

Monsoon page move

Yes, the page is back where it should be now. Thanks a lot for your assistance! --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) – Toon^(talk) 21:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Otterathome

Hi. Otterathome keeps removing user names from the Good Articels collaboration list [5][6][7]. Please block him as, your previous warning, has had no effect. The user (LOTRrules) is still around and is appealing for an unblock at his user page. 78.148.240.82 (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a completely different matter that I discussed with Otterathome; LOTRrules is indefinitely blocked, and therefore the user is completely in the right to remove their name from a Wikipedia-space participants list. – Toon^(talk) 22:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Reminder please

Thanks! 86.3.61.125 (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, it slipped my mind. I'll take a look tomorrow. – Toon^(talk) 01:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

thank you! 86.3.61.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

I've taken a look at the contribs of both LukeTheSpook and ZeppelinStarz and while there's a reasonable chance that the two are one in the same there's not really a smoking gun which makes it a certainty. I'm not going to block anyone if I'm not sure, so it might be best to file a SPI... I'm pretty sure that you know how to do that. I have left the user a message about the infobox and genres. – Toon^(talk) 22:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Lewis Hammerson

You very kindly removed a deletion tag from my article on David Edward Reid (Chairman of Tesco) a few months ago. Someone has now put a tag on my article about Lewis Hammerson, founder of Hammerson plc which is also a FTSE 100 Index company. Please would you be kind enough to consider removing this one for me too? Dormskirk (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks as though somebody has taken care of it. – Toon^(talk) 18:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but many thanks anyway Dormskirk (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For some great work giving proper consideration where other editors have applied over-hasty deletion tags Dormskirk (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That's very kind! Thankyou. – Toon^(talk) 21:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please reinstate KForge page

Further to our earlier correspondence regarding the KForge page, now that WP has officially accepted licensing change to BY-SA can you reinstate the KForge page you deleted because you thought CC-BY is not compatible with the GFDL (see your archives 3 for earlier discussion on this with some of that thread copied below). Many thanks in advance. --rgrp

BEGIN QUOTE:

Hi, I see you deleted the KForge page with log:

"deleted "KForge" ‎ (G12: Blatant copyright infringement: http://www.kforgeproject.com/about CC-BY not compatible with GFDL.)"

However, looking on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Can_I_add_something_to_Wikipedia_that_I_got_from_somewhere_else.3F I read the following:

"Only GFDL, CC-BY (or any other text which allows use for any purpose with only attribution), or public domain text can be freely copied onto Wikipedia."

I am therefore a bit confused as the log says CC-By not compatible with GFDL while this section of FAQ clearly indicates it is. Thanks in advance for your input.

ENDQUOTE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.32.4 (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we haven't actually moved to CC-BY-SA yet and are still using the GFDL, therefore at this moment, we cannot use the text. Best, – Toon^(talk) 10:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Splitting

I recieved your message on my talk page. I agree with you that cut and paste remove the history of the page, but what i did was Wikipedia:Splitting. Size of the article Sialkot was too large and is still too large, so i did splitting by creating page History of Sialkot.--Talha^{Discuss ©} 08:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Genre troll again

Hello. You blocked IP user 80.35.46.214 after I left a message on User:Scarian's page after he retired. He's still genre trolling without any Talk page discussion, and I can't catch him fast enough to go through the proper channels to get him blocked, and I am sick of reverting his edits. Could you look at his contribs and see if you can do anything? Thank you. Radiopathy •talk• 02:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. They don't give up, do they? I've blocked for a week. – Toon^(talk) 19:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you, but... a week? This IP has been disrupting for months now, and never a peep from him on a Talk page. Maybe til Christmas? Radiopathy •talk• 23:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I think going from four days to six months in one go is a little heavy-handed; I'm a fan of the whole stepped-up approach, if they carry on abusing then I'll give a longer block - if the IP gets reassigned there's less collateral and you never know, the editor might get get fed up or even start contributing usefully! – Toon^(talk) 23:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:User talk Nilnone

Thank you for informing me about that. However I am pretty sure that the user in question didn't read any of the messages posted there as he still went and removed the notabilty and refernce tags...

Regards,
--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There are only a certain number of times that you can tell someone something... people often just don't get why things are tagged and won't read the explanation for them. Frustrating, yes. – Toon^(talk) 16:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Lift of Berle Adams

The article starts off, back in 2007-03-12, with a big block of text that doesn't seem like it was formatted for paragraphs. So, I suspect a lift from something. It doesn't have any references. There certainly is a lift either to or from http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/5361594 . Would you please check this out? Let me know if there is something I can do in your place. Pknkly (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well what leaps out at me is that that URL has "enwiki" in it; this would make me assume tht they have taken it from us. I shall take a deeper look, however. :) – Toon^(talk) 19:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well I agree that the article's creation is quite suspicious (and certainly warranted investigation), but I've done some googling and run it through my online plagiarism detector and the only things that came up were either WP or our mirrors. Considering the creator's contribs being to only this article, and their move log summary it looks most likely that this was someone from his company (or otherwise affiliated with him) who had been told to write a bio and stick it on Wikipedia. This explains the lack of wikification and the length. Which is good news from a copyright point of view, anyway! – Toon^(talk) 20:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Reinstating KForge

Hi again. I now see you now explicitly recommend CC by-sa (big notice on your talk page!). Since CC by-sa is *definitely* compatible with CC-by (after all by is even more liberal), please can you now reinstate the KForge page that was deleted. Many thanks in advance. --rgrp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgrp (talk • contribs) 15:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes! I have done just that. However, you should note that the article may still be deleted by someone else, or nominated for deletion if they feel that the subject doesn't meet our notability guidelines, or that the content of the article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia; this is usually the case with content taken from subjects' websites, as it rarely meets our neutral point of view policy. It's important that you try and clean up the article by adding references to reliable, independent third party sources which demonstrate notability and bac up the information in the article, and try to make it comply with out manual of style. Regards, – Toon^(talk) 15:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Night Fever

Thanks for catching my mistake on the copyright violation. Click23 (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries! – Toon^(talk) 19:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

STL United FC

Sorry, I'm not quite sure why the article was deleted.

Although I use Wikipedia all of the time to check on History, people and places I was not and still am not sure why STL United FC does not qualify. This is a club that has grown from a half a dozen to hundreds of folks who have searched for company in viewing The Beautiful Game. Several members of the the 1950 USA World Cup Team which was featured in the Movie--Game of Their Lives are Charter Members. Mike Sorber, the Assistant coach of the USA Men's National Team is a member as is Ty Keough and many others. I'm not quite sure what I am trying to prove to you but if you would provide me some guidance perhaps I could comply.

This was my first attempt and would be curious what I could do , if anything to get STL United FC on Wikipedia. And I am very sorry that Newcastle United was relegated, although I am a Stoke City supporter.

Any advice would be appreciated. I love Wikipedia.

Cheers,

Alan Shearer

Sorry Czarinho (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Czarinho

Hi, sorry for not letting you know about the deletion, it was an oversight on my part; I deleted the article under Criterion A7, because there was no indication that it met the inclusion guidelines. Subjects need to be covered significantly by reliale, third party sources. Our notability guideline for clubs and such groups requires that "[t]he scope of their activities is national or international in scale", and that their activities have been well documented in third party sources (such as national news papers, journals etc.) Best, – Toon^(talk) 16:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Bummer

Is there any way to get STL United FC on Wikipedia?

We do have an international group, we follow the international game and The St. Louis Post Dispatch, the West End News and all four local TV stations have covered us.

I know I'm reaching for straws here but it would be VERY cool to be Wiki-fied

Czarinho (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Czarinho

More begging from STLUFC

Here is an example of our international appeal--website vists by country

http://my9.statcounter.com/project/standard2/country.php?project_id=3975316&PHPSESSID=40b45e8cfdec14af01c86a1937ee9fc8

STL United FC (Country) 22nd June 2009 18:17:42 Your log size of 500 has 500 entries. Increase your log size today!

Country | State/Region | City | ISP

 	Num 	Perc. 	Country Name 	  	 

drill down 382 76.40% United States United States drill down 55 11.00% United Kingdom United Kingdom drill down 6 1.20% Indonesia Indonesia drill down 5 1.00% Thailand Thailand drill down 4 0.80% Ireland Ireland drill down 3 0.60% Denmark Denmark drill down 3 0.60% India India drill down 3 0.60% France France drill down 3 0.60% Sweden Sweden drill down 3 0.60% Malaysia Malaysia drill down 3 0.60% Germany Germany drill down 2 0.40% Colombia Colombia drill down 2 0.40% Uruguay Uruguay drill down 2 0.40% Guatemala Guatemala drill down 2 0.40% South Africa South Africa drill down 2 0.40% Vietnam Vietnam drill down 2 0.40% Ukraine Ukraine drill down 1 0.20% Australia Australia drill down 1 0.20% Brazil Brazil drill down 1 0.20% Netherlands Netherlands drill down 1 0.20% Korea, Republic Of Korea, Republic Of drill down 1 0.20% Slovenia Slovenia drill down 1 0.20% Mongolia Mongolia drill down 1 0.20% Romania Romania drill down 1 0.20% Chile Chile drill down 1 0.20% Portugal Portugal drill down 1 0.20% Poland Poland drill down 1 0.20% Bulgaria Bulgaria drill down 1 0.20% Spain Spain drill down 1 0.20% Greece Greece drill down 1 0.20% Moldova, Republic Of Moldova, Republic Of drill down 1 0.20% Philippines Philippines drill down 1 0.20% Croatia Croatia drill down 1 0.20% Norway Norway drill down 1 0.20% Satellite Provider Satellite Provider —Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarinho (talk • contribs) 23:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately the way Wikipedia works is that we generally only include what reliable sources such as newspapers or news outlets etc. cover; the notability guideline is how we stop WP changing from an Encyclopedia into some version of Facebook or the Yellow Pages. If you can get some significant coverage in news articles etc, i.e. not just mentions, then you'll probably satisfy the inclusion guidelines. I'm sure that you can see the difficulty in maintaining (and proving the information in) articles on every shop, bar, club and person. Sorry! – Toon 02:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)