User talk:Valley2city/Archive 3

Homepage	Talk	Contributions	Sandbox	Administrivia

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art

First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject, or I happen to know personally).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there! howcheng {chat} 00:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

y have you tried to delete a page i just created?

You're invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 18th, Columbia University area Last: 11/01/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Your NPWatcher application

Dear Valley2city,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join #wikimedia-npw.

— Aitias // discussion 15:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem

It's a page move redirect so no problem speedying it. – ukexpat (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Jimbo thing is just a bit of fun. The code is as User:Ukexpat/peek - I shamelessly stole it from another user! – ukexpat (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!

New York City Meetup—Museum Extravanganza Next: February 6-7, at the Met Museum and the Brooklyn Museum Last: 01//2008

Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Metalism

I'm new to Wiki, and only joined to add a page about Metalism. Metalism, is a Religion with over 1700 members, and everything necessary to form a a Legal Religion. Please, I don't know how to, edit the page to make it proper, and don't delete it, because it's a religion and can have a page on here, just like Christianity. Revnorslal (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Revnorslal, welcome! Sorry your first experience had to begin this way. I no longer have access to the article so cannot give you specifics , but the main issue that caused it to be deleted was that you didn't assert its notability, which is criteria for speedy deletion.. You need to assert notability by referencing at least an article or two. If you can assert notability by means other than that it is a popular group on facebook, it fares better for the article. If you want I would be glad to help you determine whether a source provides enough notability for you. Meanwhile take a look at the links I left on your talk page; they are quite helpful. Again, welcome and happy editing. Valley2city^‽ 00:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok thank you, really confusing making these pages so I'm still getting used to it. Thanks. Revnorslal (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

CSD

Hi, just a reminder to mark pages as patrolled after you speedy 'em. Cheers --DFS454 (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Tiptoety ^talk 04:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Tiptoety. Wow that was fast! Valley2city^‽ 04:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Perek Shirah

On February 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Perek Shirah, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I Would Love to Help

I'll try out a couple of things with your page. Can you say, specifically, what you want? Resident Mario (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

How's that? Resident Mario (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sock help

Hey there. The multiple-sock vandal over at Maksim Chmerkovskiy appears to be doing much of the same over at Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series) now. I'm unfamiliar with the whole sock investigation process. I was wondering if I could drop it off with you as I begin to learn about how to do it myself. Cheers, Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I am also somewhat limited with this sort of thing because I am not a checkuser and can't check IP ranges but what I saw is that each user was making identical edits and therefore was very likely the same person making multiple accounts. What I do is keep track of diffs and showed the admin on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doctor1111 )which got generated after I used Twinkle (which I see that you use)). Use the history of the page and make the cur as the previous GOOD edit and prev the most recent act of vandalism done by the vandal. and then use that link in your report. See how I used it in the sockpuppet investigations: Doctor1111, RABIRABI, Friskyrabbit. There probably is a better and easier way, but I have to run now and will do research to see if Twinkle can automate that later. Valley2city^‽ 20:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Darn good question. Basically, the article (such as it was) was indeed poorly written, but it was also a sort of "how-to" under a very implausible title. So, the A7 applied as a sort of catchall in this case. Thanks for asking. Let me know when your RfA starts up! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for A Cat in the Brain

On 11 February, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article A Cat in the Brain, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dead Sea Scrolls

Hi again. Despite your entirely logical conclusion that he has a conflict of interest, IsraelXKV8R has once again deleted the section I added to the Dead Sea Scrolls article, dealing with the controversy in which he is involved. His accusations about me being a sockpuppet of Norman Golb are untrue. I have a right to be interested in this topic, whether or not Norman Golb is involved in it, and to make contributions without being harassed. I would like to reinsert the section into the article, but I would like to know who is violating the 3 revert rule, me or him. I don't want to be in violation of anything. I added this section about an interesting topic, he keeps removing it. Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dealing with people who consistently recreate speedied articles

Re your message: Lucky coincidence that it was me. =) If an account repeatedly creates an article that is deleted, the account may be blocked temporarily or indefinitely. The length depends upon the reason for the deletions and how often the article has been deleted. If the article is just a vanity article, I would probably apply a temporary block. If it was an attack article (like the example we're talking about) or vandalism, I would be more inclined to indefinitely block. Create protecting the article is an option should multiple accounts attempt to create the article. If you run into somebody who is repeated creating an article that gets deleted, you should report them to WP:AIV. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Where I am -- my IP address

Hello again. One of my teachers warned me not to submit my email address, because apparently there have been threats of lawsuits directed at people blogging about this controversy -- he says this is what IsraelXKV8R is talking about in his comments. But you can see the IP address I'm writing from here because I have logged out (I also accidentally forgot to sign in when reinserting the section which IsraelXKV8R again took out).

P.s. Please take note that I have now also found a major New York Times article on the Jewish Museum exhibit, and it explains that all the Dead Sea Scrolls people were Christian and were charged with antisemitism. This charge has been leveled at the museum exhibitors (apart from the Jewish Museum) on the blogs IsraelXKV8R keeps talking about. I have not used any such unreliable sources, but the New York Times article seems entirely reliable and relevant to this article. I will, however, get even more hostile reactions if I cite it, so I don't know what to do about that. Rachel.Greenberg 128.122.88.28 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

ya, you don't even want to think about going there. there is nothing antisemitic about arguing that the dead sea scrolls were composed by jews. there is nothing antisemitic about disagreeing with norman golb's position on the dead sea scrolls and agreeing, for instance, with larry schiffman or jodi magness. however, if you'd like, i can point you to a nice now public article by 'charles gadda' that attempts to interject antisemitism into this debate. in fact, the setup of the article in 'gadda's' article is almost identical in wording to the line above. and as was the case when 'gadda' attempted to go there, he was grasping at straws. those dss scholars who happen to be christians all agree that the dss were composed by jews and had nothing whatsoever to do with christians (except thiering and eisenman, whose views are as in the minority as golb's.) sorry to write on your page here, but rg is reaching now. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, but IsraelXKV8R has a conflict of interest on this issue too, because, from the very sources he provided in the Dead Sea Scrolls discussion area (and which he abusively, over and over again, tries to connect me with), it appears that the curator of the exhibit where his film was shown said, in an interview with a San Diego newspaper which is available on-line, that the Dead Sea Scrolls are "not really Jewish texts." Unlike the blogs in question, I have no quarrel with IsraelXKV8R's own training as a Christian minister, but his association with an exhibit whose curator made such a declaration seems to raise a lot of questions.

The New York Times article (see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/arts/design/07scrol.html) refers to "scandals ... that surround the scrolls." And it describes the key scandal as follows:

After the 1948 war, Jordan annexed the West Bank, took control of the caves and appointed the Rev. Roland de Vaux of École Biblique et Archéologique Française in East Jerusalem as overseer of an international team of scholars that would publish the scrolls. Then came 40 years in which the scrolls were passed among generations of scholars like esoteric possessions...

Jewish scholars were deliberately excluded from de Vaux’s original eight-member team, which was dominated by Roman Catholic priests and scholars. De Vaux later rejected offers by Israelis to help his team and persisted in referring to Israel as Palestine.

In the 1967 war Israel won control over the caves and scrolls, but two decades passed before it asserted any real authority over the project. One of de Vaux’s early appointees, John Strugnell, became head of the team in the 1980s but was dismissed in 1990 after an interview in which he called Judaism a “horrible religion” that “should have disappeared.”

De Vaux and Strugnell were not alone on the team to have a scorn of political or religious aspects of Judaism, a strange situation given that the scrolls demand an intimate understanding of ancient Jewish politics and religion. But their interpretations tended to reflect more a frame of mind than a doctrine, portraying the group that created the scrolls in the scholars’ own image.

Though the identification of the scrolls with a sect of ascetic Essenes was first made by Prof. Eleazar Sukenik of Hebrew University, that vision was filled out by de Vaux and his colleagues. De Vaux’s excavations at Qumran led to his theory that it housed a monastic celibate group living in the desert, isolated from other Judaic movements; in the dissent and messianic passions reflected in the scrolls, these devotees embodied almost proto-Christian sensibilities. Over decades this became orthodoxy, made immutable because until the 1990s the texts were largely inaccessible to outsiders.

The article explains that this outrageous situation was followed by a "revolution" in scrolls research. And we know that there's a huge controversy going on between people who support the original theory and people who disagree with it. IsraelXKV8R is involved in that controversy. And the controversy over the exhibitions is obviously connected with it.

So don't tell me that I "don't want to think about going there." Why is this issue not even mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls article? I will continue to pursue this matter to the full extent of my rights, and I will continue to point out that IsraelXKV8R has an obvious conflict of interest and should be prevented from controlling the Dead Sea Scrolls article the way he has been doing.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Liberty of article Illuminati (Markvision55 (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

Alice Hoffman

Oi, sorry about those conflicting edits. Using popups I saw the blank the IP user made and went to rvv it, but by the time I clicked revert pop ups was already saving the rv. My bad. --Angelus Delapsus^Talk 02:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, we both wrote on each other's pages at the same time. No prob. That happens all the time. Luckily most things are reversable and we're all human. Unless we're bots. Valley2city^‽ 03:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Valley2city. You have new messages at Angelus Delapsus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Angelus Delapsus^Talk 03:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Death by wikipedia deletion

I see you deleted article about death by wikipedia. What is your reason for doing so? The term is used in media (most recently during the Ted Kennedy death spam scandal), and satisfies all guidelines for article in encyclopedia. Just because you dislike the subject, yuo delete a perfectly valid article?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrecioUS-USA (talk • contribs) 09:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for asking about the deletion. The reason I tagged your article for deletion was for a number of compounded reasons. Your original article had no sources and had certain language that indicated a point of view (The original article has since been deleted so I can't pull it up but there was a line something to the effect of "Ted Kennedy and people even more famous like..."). I could have deleted it under another criteria, but as it was your first edit it was hard to gauge whether it was a serious attempt at an article. I apologize if this offends you, but I have dealt with many new users who don't take wikipedia seriously so I am especially vigilant about these matters. You are on the right path with the recreate and still have some clean up to do. I would recommend taking a look at some of the links I left at the top of your talk page on how to create your first article to see how to correctly format things. Happy editing, Valley2city^‽ 10:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

db-band

Nice catch, its a breath of fresh air that some people still pay attention to the fine prints on speedies, unlike the people who tag everything as db-vandalism. ;] FingersOnRoids 02:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hey Valley2City, I have a question. How do I make my signiture cool lookin like your? Thankz ThePeepShow (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm glad you like it. You need to go to My Preferences and add html code to the section "Signature". My coding is the following: [[User:Valley2city|<b><span style="background: blue; color: white;"><font face="Comic Sans MS">Valley</font></span></b>]]2[[User talk:Valley2city|<b><span style="background: skyblue; color:white;">city</span></b><sup>‽</sup>]]. You'd obviously want to change some things, for example the username. Just make sure that you include links to your userpage and talkpage. Also make sure that "Raw Signature" is checked. After you set up your signature I recommend testing it out somewhere inoccuous such as at WP:Sandbox. It may take a couple of times but the sandbox is meant for testing. Happy designing, Valley2city^‽ 05:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ThePeepShow^‽ 22:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think that the name was the only think you were going to change... :) You might want to mess with the colors. I'd be glad to help with that, if you wish. Valley2city^‽ 22:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, what colors do you think would go with my name? ThePeepShow^‽ 03:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

How bought this? ThePeepShow^‽ 04:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I got it now ThePeepShow04:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Lookin' good. Now go forth and edit! Valley2city^‽ 05:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey me again, I was wondering if you could help me be a better editor on wiki. Also can you look at my User Page and see if it is set up right, Thankz. ThePeepShow 21:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I didn't see that User:childrapistmolesterman 's page was his userpage, and so I removed my speedy delete tag...but then I didn't know what to do with the page, so I kinda froze. Thanks for taking care of it! -.-; DreamHaze (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No prob, we're all fighting the same fight. Valley2city^‽ 23:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nicely Written

Sholam man,
I really liked your Wikipedian Theology.
Its nicely written.
Good work buddy.
Oniongas (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Good Luck, I Voted For You

RFA. ResMar 20:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Good Luck Valley

I voted for you I also applied. Do I put my application on the RfA page or does it get put on the automatically

Thanks and Good Luck --MyspaceMan12 (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Grundlage

I've just read an unanswered question you raised three years ago on a talk page. The answer is:

Grundlage is the name given to the base layer of the Priestly Source. Its often referred to as "P_g". Essentially, the Priestly Source is a much more intricate source than the others, and comprises several layers. Essentially P_g is the basic rival to JE; its mainly just the narrative bits plus the Holiness Code (which is itself an earlier document, referred to as "H" or "P_h").

Later Priestly editors modified the Priestly Source by adding extra rules and regulations in - eventually forming the rest of Leviticus, and huge chunks of Numbers; these later editors have various features, but are generally further broken down into "teacher" (who writes as if giving a lesson - problem A occurs, so Moses asks for advice, solution B is given; this writer is usually referred to as "P_t") and "other" (ie. everything else; also referred to as "supplemental", and usually "P_s").

Essentially the Priestly Source is a bit of a mess - like an onion with lots of layers, P_g is what you are left with when you remove all the later additions. Clinkophonist (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I'm taking a class on Biblical Criticism now by someone who has his own theories, a sort of circular theory that goes one step after Redactor called B - Bridge. Valley2city^‽ 18:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: DQ Diet

The user who created the article is User:Trevorfitzy. ... discospinster _talk 20:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ariella Sinclaire

I moved your SPI case to the above page name to make clear who the master account is. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 01:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Valley2city^‽ 01:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You are now an admin

I would like to congratulate on your successful request for adminship. You have managed to gain the trust of the community, and as a result they have seen it fit to give you the tools for the additional benefit of the encyclopedia. I hope you will learn to use them in a matter befitting the trust given to you. You can test them out at New Admin School. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask me or any other administrator around. Cordially yours, bibliomaniac15 06:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankspamming my OWN talk page

That's right, I'll spare everyone the personalized thankspam and I won't spam anyone's page but my own on this one. Thank you to everyone who participated in the discussion for my successful RfA. I appreciate all of the tough questions that caused me to do much thinking over the past week and encourage me to be a better editor and the best admin I can be. Thank you to everyone for your support, kind words, and confidence and I look forward to wielding the mop and bucket to help in the collaborative effort to make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia in the world. Valley2city^‽ 06:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Well done :) --GedUK  09:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Have fun swinging the mop at people. ResMar 18:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Swinging the mop at people... I'm visualizing an old lady attacking the children who just tracked mud into her newly-cleaned kitchen. Thanks once again, Mario and everyone else. Valley2city^‽ 02:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocking notices

Hey, I'm sure you're still getting the hang of the admin tools, but it's generally a good idea to leave a blocking message on the talk page of folks you block. It would be helpful if the block tool did that for us, but they don't. Of course there are occasional exceptions where many of us don't bother with the talk page message - usually for obvious disrupters who clearly expect a block, blatant socks that also expect it, etc, but that's probably less than 5% of the blocks most of us make. Happy mopping. Toddst1 (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there particular templates I can use or should it be written "by hand" and case by case? Thanks. Valley2city^‽ 18:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are templates you can use at Wikipedia:Warning#Blocks, but to be honest, you really should be using something like WP:TW. You'll be much more productive in your work as an admin. Let me know if I can be of assistance or you have more questions. You can email me as well. Best regards. Toddst1 (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't seem to have a block option on my Twinkle. I seem to have too much on the toolbar including Twinkle and Friendly and though there are a few inches of empty space on the right side of my screen, I don't seem to have n option of Twinkle blocking. Any help in fixing this would be very much appreciated because I would certainly prefer to use twinkle to make the process a little more efficient and accurate. Thanks, Valley2city^‽ 01:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. let me take a look. Are you using Firefox? Toddst1 (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You have a lot in your monobook.js file. Try copying mine in there instead of yours and see if it works. Then add stuff back one at a time. Toddst1 (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I know this seems like a lot of work, but you'll really be glad once you got it working. I gotta run. TTYL. Toddst1 (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute - I just remembered going through the exact same thing. It's subtle. There's a tab for "Warn" and under that, change "General Note" to "Block" then the second pull down will show you blocking messages. Hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be working, no? Toddst1 (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The twinkled block warning won't block them as well, will it? It hasn't been automated to do both? Meanwhile, I tried doing the starting over but found a good temporary fix: I activated the drop-down menu gadget in preferences which gives more space for other things. I'll play with specifics in monobook later. Thanks for your help Valley2city^‽ 17:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope - it would be nice if you block and notify the user of the block in one action. Maybe some javascript guru can hack that up. Glad you got it working. Manually pasting those warnings would be very tedious. Last time I checked, I had issued about 4000 blocks. If I didn't have TW, there's no way those have happened. Toddst1 (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Wells Fargo Bank

Hi! I hope you don't mind, but I noticed that you blocked User:Wells Fargo Bank based only on his account name. He's requested a username change to User:WFB, so I've gone ahead and accepted the unblock request so he can make the request.

If this is a problem, please reply on my talk page.

(Incidentally, the template {{UsernameBlock}} is available as a notice message for those types of blocks. It can also be called as {{uw-ublock}}; there are several uw-*block templates available for various types of blocks.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I meant for it to be a soft block pending name change. But I thought it was a clear violation of the username policy in terms of it being both misleading and somewhat promotional in use of a company name. I thought that the user first attempted to use the name Bankofamerica and then settled for Wells Fargo Bank as something that needed immediate action before it escalated into a copyrighted trademark issue. I did a soft block and requested the user change their username. I'm still learning the admin ropes, so is there an easier way, such as twinkle, to both block and automatically put a template on the user's page giving them instructions on how to change the username? Thanks, Valley2city^‽ 01:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I could tell from the block reason that you meant it as a soft block pending name change. However, I know that good administrative practice is to contact the blocking admin before unblocking, and only unblock after consultation (or they're unreachable). I figured this was a case where it was okay to unblock first and then ask.

I don't use Twinkle, so I can't tell you how it handles putting the templates. Were I doing it, I would have blocked the user (indef, softblock, UsernameBlock) and then left one of the two templates (which, I'm sure you saw, include the unblock instructions) on the user's talk page. I have a pastebook set up where I can copy the most common templates I use; it's in a pull-down from my menu bar. In the case of Wells Fargo Bank, I think two or three of use have pointed him toward WP:CHU, so he should know where/how to change his username. —C.Fred (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk back

Hello, Valley2city. You have new messages at Newguy34's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Newguy34 (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

User:KuroiShiroi

Thank you for deleted my userpage, which I had tagged as an attack page. Can you salt the page as well? I have no intention of creating an userpage in the foreseeable future. KuroiShiroi (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your aid and speed in doing so. Best wishes, KuroiShiroi (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, I've salted it, but feel free to ask me or any other admin if you ever decide you want to have it unsalted. This was my first salting so I hope I did it right. Valley2city^‽ 05:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Evenmoremotor

Unfortunately, it seems you're the latest in a line of admins to try to reason with this user regarding speedy deletion, but unfortunately it doesn't seem the user wants to listen. I've opened up a thread at ANI regarding this user if you'd like to chime in. Oren0 (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisting question

Hi, I'm just curious why you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Manshino. In that case, there was nobody contesting the deletion and there wasn't a contested prod for it, so it could easily have been closed as delete instead of having it drag on longer. Although three editors isn't a huge consensus, a relisting would would probably just add pile-on delete votes. Tavix (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There were only two !votes besides the nominator and I would have preferred more input. Having looked at the article, however, I think it's clear that it doesn't belong here in its form so I just deleted it. Thanks, Valley2city^‽ 02:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• No problem. Tavix (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

File:KevinVearncombe.jpg

Could you please delete this file? This was uploaded solely to be used in the corresponding attack page. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 00:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC) *:Y Done. Valley2city^‽ 03:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I can't delete it. The image is from the commons and I am not an administrator there so therefore lack the ability to delete. Please ask an administrator there to do it. Valley2city^‽ 03:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Imbox deletion.png

Today you accidentally deleted the high-use, high risk image File:Imbox deletion.png and then you restored it. Please, take more care when you delete files. And please, when you restore check if it was protected before and re-protect it. Since when a page is deleted and then restored it looses its protection.

You can usually see in the history of the page that it was protected. If not, then you can see in the page's log if it was protected. You can reach the log by clicking the link in the top left corner of the history page.

--David Göthberg (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was trying to delete the image that was mentioned in the thread above, utilizing the "deli" button in twinkle and it automatically deleted Imbox instead of the image I tried to delete. I quickly restored it. I think I'm going to avoid dealing with images for now until I learn more about the technical stuff. Valley2city^‽ 18:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the details. The ambox images are deleted about once a month, and people usually claim they used Twinkle and was aiming for some other image. But this is the first time someone could remember the details about which image they were trying to delete. It seems to be a bug in Twinkle, and now that we have your details the Twinkle programmers perhaps can figure out what the bug is and fix it. So I have reported this bug to the Twinkle developers.

And by the way, you only restored the last version of the image description page, and you did not restore the image itself. So I had to restore the rest of the page versions and the image. But yeah, the image delete and restore interface is a bit tricky.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi V2C
"deli" = image batch deletion. Deletes all images found on the page. Cheers, Amalthea 22:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Valley Beth shalom

You have a point, this may be a unique name. The disfunction come on the category pages. When you are skimming down a lost of synagogues in categories like conservative, oldest, or in a particular architectural style, it is really helpful to have them identified by location. Almost all synagogues have name replicated by other synagoues - there are other "valley" synagogues out there - so wehn I am looking at aq page lacking a geographic specifier, I move it. As do others who regularly write on synagogues.Historicist (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a mjoor deal. If you feel stongly, go ahead and move it back.Historicist (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether you move it or not, the page will continue to come up when someone searches Valley Beth Shalom.Historicist (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the congregation. However , if it really does have an "over-reaching cultural influence " I hope that you wil add information from articles or books about it to the article.

As a general rule, adding the location to synagogue and church articles makes sense, as it does for all the High Schools named Madison or Washington.Historicist (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Re. Your NPWatcher application

Thank you very much and yes it worked perfectly. Cheers Kyle1278 02:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Kyle, and happy newpage patrolling! Valley2city^‽ 03:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Schedule

Thanks for correcting that and i don't think that was intended as a joke. Simply south (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Blackwell550

You might want to check User:Blackwell550. The editor's been making nothing but promotional articles about a firm of the same name (Blackwell). -WarthogDemon 06:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done The user has been blocked for advertising-only and the page has been deleted. For future reference, you may want to warn and send reports to WP:AIV and WP:UAA, as they will be responded to just as quickly (perhaps quicker if I am offline) and make it look more official. Valley2city^‽ 06:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've messed up a lot of reports at WP:UAA so I'm hesitant on using that until I'm better at such reports. I'll keep that in mind though. :P -WarthogDemon 06:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, It takes some getting used to. I'll usually respond if I'm online. Valley2city^‽ 06:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile–Estonia relations

Hi. I nominated Chile–Estonia relations for deletion, and I have a question, well really two questions about your close. The first is: what did you mean by "Should the result of this AfD suggest the results of all the proddings of "X-Y relations" articles?". The second one is: was the result really keep? Certainly, there was no consensus to delete, but with 4 !delete and 7--maybe 8--!keeps it seems (to me) like a stretch to say they there was consensus to keep. And that's just vote counting. I my (albeit biased) opinion the keep votes are rather weak and generally not grounded in policy/guidelines, and so taking that into account I really don't see any consensus for anything. So it's seems to me that it should have been closed as "no consensus." Which of course means the article stays, but I'm more concerned about the precedent that this AfD sets than whether the individual article stays or not. So any chance you could explain how there is consensus for keeping and/or any chance you'd change the close to "no consensus"? Thanks for your time. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I notice there were a LOT of Prods recently regarding relations of two different countries, seemingly a scourge, and was curious if the challenge of such a prod meant that there is precedent for how to handle the other prods. Should we lump them together, instead, through an AfD with a chopping block. As for the second concern, I looked through all the !votes and many of the keeps had valid policies. I looked also at the article and saw the visa-free agreement and the amount of trade indicates notability and these things are sourced. The numbers were spread out enough to be considered consensus. Valley2city^‽ 18:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

To expand a little to what I just said, the comments weren't things like "per above", I wasn't too concerned about pile-on here, the comments I found to be valid still had a significant gap between keep and delete. That is why I am keeping it at keep. Feel free to try and convince me otherwise and I will take your comments into account. Valley2city^‽ 18:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Well, here's how I see it--and I certainly respect your view if see it otherwise:

• Based on strict vote counting only, we've got 4 !deletes and 8 !keeps, so that's 66% in favor of keeping. That doesn't look like consensus to me. Granted, the line between clear consensus and clear disagreement is muddy, but if this were an RfA with 66% support it probably would be closed as a fail. See chart-->.
• Looking at the votes themselves:
  • Peters V (Vercumba)'s Keep: Clearly based on the existence of a relationship between the countries, not on the existence of sources on the topic. Does not reference any applicable policy or guideline.
  • NOV's Keep: Makes no reference to any applicable guideline or policy. Rationale: " I'll take your word that Chile is indeed important to Estonia." This is admission that no effort was made to locate sources that establish notability.
  • Mansford's Keep: The crux of it is: "the fact that they have negotiated agreements, and that the Prime Minister of Estonia has conferred with the President of Chile, is proof enough that there is a notable relationship here." This is a made-up notability criterion, completely divorced from anything that WP:N says.
  • Paster Theo's Keep: " I don't share the nominator's view that these relations are non-notable." This looks like pure opinion and makes no reference to the established notability criteria. Also, he's misunderstood my deletion rationale.
  • DGG's Keep. DGG always votes keep, and like the other keeper's here, his vote is not grounded in the relevant guideline (WP:N).
  • Likeminas' Keep. Asserts notability without an providing any evidence.
  • My delete: I'm arguing that the general notability guideline of significant coverage in independent secondary resources has not been demonstrated. Clearly, this is policy/guideline based argument.
  • Russavia's Delete: First argues that lack of permanent diplomatic missions implies non-notability. this is a made-up criterion and not based in WP:N. But then he argues that no non-independent sources have been put forward--and that is a policy based argument.
  • NickD's delete: Like Russavia he starts off by arguing that the relations themselves are trivial, and therefore the article should go--not any argument based on WP:N. But then he (correctly) points out that a press release is not sufficient for meeting WP:N.
  • Eric Naval's Delete: basically just second's my nomination.

So anyways, a) thanks for reading this, and being willing to reconsider. I realize that the chance of one you actually changing your mind is inversely related to the length of my post, so I've tried to keep this short, but I don't think I've been very successful. b) I just don't see the points made in the !keep votes as valid, and even if those arguments were of equal validity to the !deletes, 2:1 is hardly consensus. See also this AfD which was closed as Delete, despite only 2 !deletes versus 5 !keeps--I think the closing admin's rationale there applies here too. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking all this time to clarify everyone's arguments. I spent a long time poring over all of the arguments and related articles and AfDs. I don't know if I would have closed Bilateral relations of Ireland the way that User:Spartaz did. Many policies are not black and white and I looked at it very differently. As to the AfD at hand, I didn't necessarily come to the same conclusions re: everyone's arguments as you did. You didn't mention Martintg's keep and he presented valid arguments regarding bias regarding non-english sources and that even Tranwiki is not the way to go. Just because it is not reported in English does not eliminate its notability, and something like that would be more of interest in the Estonian and Chilean media than it would in english-speaking countries, but that shouldn't result in favoring certain regions but instead should reflect a worldwide view. Additionally it looks like joint stamps is pretty notable too. You are welcome to try AfD again (and I would recuse myself from the proceedings), but I feel that at least a rough consensus was garnered here that implied "keep", and as you pointed out there were not many strong arguments from either side, but the good points I saw tallyed more toward the "keep" side. Remember this isn't an RfA so there is no 80% threshold. It's not a vote, but 66% is a super-majority and I don't think that that should result in a delete in a case where these are not meant as pile-on votes. It only needs to be rough to determine consensus, not near unanimous. Valley2city^‽ 00:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding in detail. You are right about Martintg—I had meant to go through all votes, and somehow missed his. (Although his initial argument was not policy-based. He subsequently asserted that Spanish and Estonian sources existed but failed to provide any.) Anyways, my point was not that this should've been closed as delete, merely that it should've (in my humble, non-admin opinion) been closed as no consensus. And just to clarify, I don't think RfA isn't vote either, and technically there's no threshold there, unless I've misunderstood. My point was just that if someone got 66% support at RfA, no bureaucrat would look at that and claim there was a consensus to promote unless most of the 33% of opposes where really bad. Now, maybe it's apples and oranges, but I still don't see 66% keep/ 33% delete with mostly poor arguments on both sides as a consensus for anything.
The reason why I care so much is that there's a ton of these X-Y relations articles out there, and it would be great to establish some sort of working consensus/guideline/rules of thumb about which are notable are which aren't. AfDs closed as "keep" or "delete" would go some ways towards defining that understanding, while a "no consensus" close would probably not inform that debate very much. And I strongly feel this particular AfD should be a part of any such precedent setting, as (IMHO) there was no clear consensus with how to handle this article. Anyways, I'll get off my soapbox now. Thanks for taking the time to deal with my concerns. Yilloslime ^T_C 01:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've lost track of the indent. As you pointed out, there are multiple debates on this theme and they all have had different outcomes. Some have been speedied, some have been successfully prodded, some have been deleted, no consensused, or kept through AfD. I don't intend this to serve as a precedent, but rather I find it fits this particular case. Sure the 2:1 ratio may have been a factor in my decision, but I, as a then uninvolved administrator, looked at the article and went to determine if the arguments had merit. I went in and determined that the sources, though the article could use more, were significant enough to satisfy Verifiability and that various points made in the article satisfy Notability and closed the way I did taking this and each comment into consideration. I thank you, though, because you have made me discover an answer to the initial question I brought up: "Should the result of this AfD suggest the results of all the proddings of "X-Y relations" articles?". The answer is a resounding "no". We're not trying to build the UN on Wikipedia, but rather review everything on a case-by-case basis. Valley2city^‽ 02:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Just something

When I stated that I wouldn't address opposes, I simply meant that I won't badger people. If you want to oppose then you can oppose. If I see something that seems wrong or that you need more information, I would address that. You mentioned my block log - 5 actual blocks, three by Admin who have fallen out of favor, and those 3 were very iffy. The one admin cussed me out via email and other things, violated CoI, and many other things that I don't want to talk about. Another had RfCs against them for their bad use of sysop tools. Nandesuka, the most recent, is an editor that I work with now a lot and you can ask him about me if you want. If you want to say that I purposefully antagonize people, fine. I don't go out of my way, troll message boards, or anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

ACC Interface Registration

Just confirming it was I who registered for a username on the ACC Interface. Valley2city^‽ 16:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. FunPika 19:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Hill

Valley2city, may I double-check with you about this one? Most comments were "delete, no sources" or "delete, only one source" but I added three sources after those comments were made. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says "If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant." Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Paul, I've been looking it over, and while indeed you have added sources, there was still the concern of notability which is more than just sources, which I don't know was accomplished beyond the concerns when the AfD was first created (I've been looking at all the diffs and the closest thing I saw to notability was the line about charting which was already there before the AfD was issued and I don't necessarily see a college radio station as notable. That having been said, AfD is not always the final nail in the coffin and I didn't delete with prejudice, if you want I can e-mail you a copy of the article and you can work on it. Thanks, Valley2city^‽ 14:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another look. "The concern of notability" primarily is about sources. That's what WP:N says, and "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject" is what all the subguidelines have in common too. There does not have to be some additional accomplishment (such as a charted hit) for the subject of a biography, if it meets the general notability guideline. The AfD closed without a full discussion about whether the three articles in the Anchorage Daily News are enough to satisfy the GNG, or in other words to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. I was saying it was enough, and DreamGuy was saying it was not (and at the time of his comment I had not added the third article). I respectfully disagree with your close, which ought to have been a relist. (Also, I would not need a deleted article emailed to me, as I can access the deleted revisions myself.) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize that you were an admin. Whoops. In that case as well as the fact that nobody got to comment on the change, I don't mind you overturning and relisting to gain consensus in light of the new sources (as you also were the one with the last word in the discussion, anyway). I'm still relatively new to the world of Admin so I don't know how to physically reopen something I've closed but I'm fine with a relist. I'll try to do it myself but I'm not totally sure I'm going to do it right (luckily everything is reversable). Valley2city^‽ 18:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reopened it. Probably did it wrong and modified where it said don't modify, but any mistakes can be corrected and we can all learn from them. Valley2city^‽ 19:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. You did fine with the re-opening. By the way, I would not have overturned it myself, as that could have been viewed as "wheel warring" if others had not noticed you giving me permission to do it. All the best, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback: ZX81

Hello, Valley2city. You have new messages at ZX81's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.