User talk:Xymmax/Archives/2009/November

Thank you.

Thanks for the tips. 13:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

wrong shortcut, changes the context of your edit

Context: Talk:2009 Richmond High School gang rape

You linked to WP:NCA, but I think you meant WP:N/CA. tedder (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, thanks for the heads up. I'll go fix it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

the deletion

is there any way to close out the afd for the richmond gang rape? it looks like the keeps have it(?). i'd like to edit the article again but don't want to put much effort in if its going to be deleted in the end.

Richmondian (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that AfD discussions run for seven days. aftre when they will be closed by an uninvolved editor, usually an administrator in a case like this. I actually see it as a "no consensus" either way right now; if that holds the article would not be deleted. I'd suggest that if you care about it (and clearly you do) the more the article improves over the seven days that less likely it is to be deleted. I'm going to see about working in the links I posted in my AfD comment into the article, but I probably won't get to it before tomorrow. If you're inclined to jump in, be my guest ;) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

ok, got it

how do you do the "talkback" thing? i like it. do you have to go and add it to my page manually or is it automatic? Richmondian (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's manual. The purpose is to try and keep both sides of a conversation in one place, instead of half on my talk page and half on yours. You add it by typing {{subst:mytalk|NAME OF TALK PAGE SECTION|ts=~~~~~}} to the other person's talk page (filling in the proper name of the talk page section of course). The "ts" is what adds the time the note was left. It isn't required, but it helps in cases like this one, where I've added a couple notices in a row. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

alright. would be great if there was an automatic way to do it! Richmondian (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle gives a "tb" tab for it. I don't like splattering talkbacks all over the place, though. tedder (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know it had been added to Twinkle; I don't use it much although I do have some of Voice of All's old scripts installed. I don't mind spamming the banner as long as it's time stamped. It only becomes annoying to me when the tag hangs around forever without being archived. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sleep to Live Institute Deletion

Hello, please userfy the Sleep to Live Institute article so that I may continue to attend to your concerns of notability. Would you be able to better point me in the direction of its failing? In my reviews of the notability guidelines, I felt that the secondary sources met the notability guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Specifically citing:

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.

and

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.

To review again these were the sources specific to the notability of the Sleep to Live Institute, cited by category:

International Sources:

Dr. Oexman's Australian appearance and interview representing the Sleep to Live Institute on Mornings with Kerri-Anne

Dr. Oexman's Australian appearance and interviews representing the Sleep to Live Institute on ABC Copriconria and others.

Dr. Oexman and Jason Ensor's columns in Thailand's Educational Living Magazine (they don't have an online version of their magazine to link to the specific articles. If needed I could probably obtain a written validation from the editor.)

National publications:

(Bed Times is a nation-wide bedding industry publication)

(Las Vegas Review Journal is not local or regional in relation to the SW Missouri institute, their coverage is related to the presence of the company at an annual Vegas Market furniture show)

Educational Affiliations

Award given the parent company's CEO for accomplishments including the establishment of the Sleep to Live Institute from Elon University.

Research projects are done in collaboration with Dr.'s at Duke University, which working with the 7th ranked research University in the US, is notable in itself. I can provide current IRB approved research protocols that list them for verifiability sake if needed.

Acclaims for Products Developed

(BodyDiagnostic article) (awards given for BodyDiagnostic... also International) (Sleep Savvy is a nation-wide industry publication)

and numerous established patents: dozens of patents through the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Additional sources were cited as informational and/or primary in nature; but, the above were intended specifically for the notability of the Sleep to Live Institute itself as noted by secondary international and national, non-regional/local sources.

Thank you for your time Cronides2 (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. As you requested, I have userfied the Sleep to Live Institute article. You may find it in your user space here. I think I understand your concerns with respect to this topic, but it seems that at present there is not a sufficient showing of notability for a separate article on the organization. I did look at the sources that were present in the article before I deleted it, and I am concerned that they did not qualify as independent reliable sources. Typically, independent coverage for an organization covered by WP:CORP will come from traditional media sources. Industry publications do not, to my mind, have the degree of independence required to show notability. However, if you want to present your case to a wider audience, you do have a couple of other options. You can request deletion review of my decision. Normally, deletion review only looks to see if the closer (me!) correctly assessed the arguments made during the discussion rather than taking a second bite at the apple, still, the choice is yours. A second option would be to list your two or three best sources for evaluation at the reliable sources noticeboard. If the editors there agree that the sources are reliable for the purpose of establishing notability, I'd be willing to restore the article. Please let me know if I can help. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I requested feedback from the reliable sources noticeboard and Simonm223 offered that the sources submitted suggested the company is notable:

"Here's the thing... If I were responsible for deciding the fate of the page I would probably keep it based on newsmedia references suggesting the company is a notable one."

He went further to suggest that the sections past the history (I'm presuming the innovation sections) were not adequately in a NPV to him, and seemed like advertising. In any case, so far as the sources, he was of a mind that they are reliable for the purpose of establishing notability. Cronides2 (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'm going to give it another few hours to see if anyone else wants to chime in, then all re-read all of the sources mentioned. I'll post back here later this evening. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Originally I was planning to go with Simonm223's asssessment, but now another editor, DGG, disagrees that the sources show notability. DGG is, I'd note, a very experienced administrator in this area, and I'm inclined to give his opinion a great deal of weight. Let's see who else opines. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw, he only actually commented on one of the citations. I requested some further feedback on the international media outlets; but, he doesn't appear to be interested in further discussion.Cronides2 (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, I missed this reply, or I would have responded sooner. It does seems as if we've exhausted the interest of outsiders on this subject, and I'm still not comfortable that the userfied version is sufficient to meet the objections. If you still want it undeleted in its current form, just list it for deletion review, were you'll get a binding opinion. As the deleter I'll make brief statement explaining my rationale, but I'll stay neutral on the request should you choose to make it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I was planning to follow up this week to see if you missed it. As suggested, I've posted the article for deletion review and hopefully haven't marred the process to terribly. (think I spend as much time figuring out how to post to all these areas as I do actually adding content!)Cronides2 (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Cronides2/sandbox/Sleep to Live Institute

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Cronides2/sandbox/Sleep to Live Institute. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cronides2 (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Peanut Butter Protection

Peanut butter has been protected for almost year now, does it need protecting still? Looked at the history appeared to be a concerted campaign of vandalism against that page by party/parties unknown, perhaps they've lost interest by now, perhaps they have a script which watches pages they attack to see if it gets unprotected, I have no idea - couldn't hurt to find out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.211 (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right. I'll unprotect it for a bit and we'll see how it goes. Thanks for the note. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Fairfield College Preparatory School

Hello, how are you Xymmax?

I wanted to thank you for cleaning up the page on Fairfield College Preparatory School, I go to school there. The things that were being put on that page was really stupid, and insulting. So thank you for locking it, and cleaning up, I never thought that people would want to mock one of our greatest teachers.

Thank you, again.

Conor LaHiff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.57.250 (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. Feel free to drop me a note if things get bad again after the page is unlocked. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Your closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Finale (American Idol 8)

I believe your closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Finale (American Idol 8) was incorrect given the arguments and I ask you to reconsider your close.

You wrote "While there was significant interest in a merge, all the referenced information all ready was present in the existing article." The nominator stated that the information was already located in the articles. The nominator was incorrect and if you look at my Merge vote you would see that two of the season contain none of the information performances listed, and in fact lead you to the finale page to see those performances, and the other season just lists who performed but not their performances. The other two Merge votes state that is a content fork, split off from the original article, and since there is a parent article that the information could be contained in, the finale articles should be merged to their individual season articles.

I am asking you to reconsider changing your close to Merge, to merge information from the finale articles to their respective season articles and to create redirects from the finale articles to their respective season articles. Aspects (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I probably can meet you half way. I don't think a close of merge is appropriate simply because merge was a minority position in the AfD, so I can't say it had consensus. I am happy to undelete the articles in your user space however, so you can carry out a merge of the information you think is important. My statement in my closing was that the "referenced" (by which I meant sourced) information was in the article; I do recognize that there was a great deal of other, unsourced, information which was not in the other articles. As far as the redirects go, I really don't see anyone typing in "Grand finale (American Idol)", but redirects don't cost anything, so I have no objection to having one (or three I suppose). If this sounds good, let me know and I'll undelete the articles into your user space. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Putting it in my user space is acceptable. I just always thought it articles were split off from their parent articles and then were determined to be just a content fork and not worthy of its own article, that the split off article would be merged back into the parent article because that is where it originally came from and the fact that there is a place to put the information. Aspects (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the articles are in your user space at User:Aspects/sandbox/Grand Finale (American Idol 6) (or whatever the appropriate number is). Please let me know if you need anything else. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)