User talk:Fuhghettaboutit/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Heroscape Generals

Your editing is interfering with the ongoing expansion of the Heroscape articles. I assume it was a good faith edit but would you please be civil enough to unlock the Ullar (Heroscape), Vydar (Heroscape) and Utgar (Heroscape) pages? They are in need of expansion (which is an ongoing process) not deletion. Thank you. --The Matrix Prime 06:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I posted over and over again in every edit summary the afd debate link, I can only asssume you are perfectly aware of the deletion debate for these articles and the resulting consensus that they were to be merged and redirected to Heroscape. I was forced to protect those redirects as you ignored the afd consensus and reverted the redirects.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes I know you blocked it off, that's why I'm asking you to unblock it. If it wasn't blocked we need to be having this lovely conversation. These pages are part of the ongoing expansion of the Heroscape article, I noticed you don't seem to be a part of that and as these are new pages I'm not sure that you actually know that that is going on. Nevertheless these articles can't be filled out if they're blocked. I can only assume you are aware of that and simply have chosen not to wait for them to be finished and simply blocked them anyway. Please undo the block. These pages are “stubs” if that helps you to understand. --The Matrix Prime 06:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
If you rewrite the articles in a form that addresses the concerns at the deletion debate I will unprotect them. You can do so in a user subpage and once ready, alert me, and I will unprotect them. What I mean by addressing the concerns at afd is that the articles, if they are to be posted, must:
  • Contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot (see WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:FICTION).
  • Cite to independent, reliable sources which provide significant coverage of the subject, thus verifying what is written.
--Fuhghettaboutit 23:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don’t try to confuse the issue by claiming to be “protecting” the article. You have BLOCKED the article. If it were protected then it would not be deleted, right? Now I am trying to protect (proper use of word) the article by having it restored. Since this has been pointed out, I’m not sure why your response hasn’t been: “Oops, my bad, here you go.” We all make mistakes man, you don’t have to try to defend it, I’m not going to hold it against you or anything. --The Matrix Prime 03:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You can characterize it any way you'd like, though it's not very useful to use words in an idiosyncratic way that have specific, defined meanings, linked directly to descriptions of Wikipedia processes, which provide the meaning of those words for Wikipedia purposes (see WP:BLOCK and WP:PROTECT). In any event, you are not getting the picture and I am beginning to think I am flogging a dead horse but let me try again. We operate by consensus here. Articles that are nominated for deletion at WP:AFD result in a consensus decision. The articles at issue went through an afd debate. Once again, here is the link to that debate. The result of discussion was the consensus that the articles should be merged into Heroscape and not remain as stand alone articles. This was based on the nominator's citation to the standards at WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:FICTION and WP:N (please explore those links, as well as others I have posted). I merged the content of the articles, per that debate, via this edit. You reverted the redirection of the articles back to the prior text in contravention of the the result of the debate, necessitating my protection of them, and we are now talking in circles about this. I advise you to avail yourself of the option I suggested in my last post.--Fuhghettaboutit 07:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm all for a consensus, but this was not a consensus, this was you and a couple friends jumping in, making a random decision and then shutting down anyone who happens to disagree. That's what I have a problem with and it’s a valid concern. Wikipedia should be a consensus, not three or so people having almost no discussion on a private page somewhere. (Yes, you can see I did read it). I have problems with that kind of under the table dealings. Again I'm not sure why I'm not getting through, we do seemed to be talking in cricle dispite my best efforts here. --The Matrix Prime 02:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't know any of the editors who contributed to the deletion debate. As for "under the table dealings," the afd notice (it looked like this) was posted in the article for six days stating that the article was being considered for deletion with a boldfaced link directing editors to the article for deletion discussion. If you really think something nefarious went on here, or this was out of process, I suggest you take this to Wikipedia:Deletion review.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homo perfectus

Hi. I see that you closed the nomination for Homo perfectus and, henceforth, deleted the article. I had made some improvements a bit before the article was deleted, as a user suggested me to do ([1]), and I´m not sure if they were taken into account. I´m not asking for the article to be restored, but I was wondering whether you could provide me with a draft of the article, so I could work on it for some time, and add it again sometime in the future, after intensive work on it so that it meets Wikipedia´s article standards. ♠TomasBat 01:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I was stalking you (it's a little hobby of mine), and I noticed that someone had added a related article, The Perfect World Tour, to that AfD, but way down in the discussion, where it'd be easy to miss. Do you want to delete it, too? Or should I retag it and send it back through AfD? -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I read it, meant to delete it, but first was deleting links in other pages and lost track. I must say you are an excellent stalker! (never heard you once). Have you gleaned anything interesting from the activity?--Fuhghettaboutit 01:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You!

Thanks for your help with my article Job costing. I am still figuring out wikipedia's format, and your example (with link) was a great help. 128.194.31.101 20:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Limbo 41414

I'm confused why you relisted this to gain consensus. Limbo 41414 had no opposition in the discussion. Lack of votes is not a lack of consensus. Vegaswikian 04:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus means general agreement among the members of a group. We don't vote at AFD, we discuss/debate the merits of deletion, and one person's opinion of a nomination is hardly discussion/debate among a group. Sheer numbers matter little for the very reason that it's not a vote, but there must be some threshold; any deletion debate with only a nomination and one editor commenting is relisted as a matter of course. This also avoids listings at WP:DRV by article creators because of deletion without sufficient consensus. In fact, people have in the past suggested a line in the sand threshold of four participants. I am against making any bright line rule, but closing with one participant is ill-advised. Note that relisted articles do not need to wait through the 5 day process but may be closed anytime it is felt consensus is reached.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. It was successful, and I am now, may God have mercy on us all, an administrator. Look at all the new buttons! I had heard about 'protect,' 'block user,' and 'delete,' but no one told me about 'kill,' 'eject,' and 'purée.' I appreciate the trust the community has in me, and I'll try hard not to delete the main page or block Jimbo. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gugera Branch

I must have mistagged that one. I meant for it to be db-nocontext. Sometimes I get "on a roll" and I'll slip up.

By the way, that same author has put up articles about seemingly every irrigation ditch in his part of the world. Lots of them. It might take a multi-article AfD. The subject of irrigation projects in — gosh, where was it? Pakistan? — may be notable as a whole, but I can't see each individual canal or ditch being notable on its own. I'm going to be on the road for two weeks and my net access may be limited, so I won't be able to look into this myself. Realkyhick 06:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: Just found the user. It's User:Ashtar Chattha. I may have overstated the number of articles he's done on Pakistani irrigation stuff so far, after looking at his edit history. Realkyhick 06:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Got ya. There are only a few "canal articles". They seem to feed off the more developed Rakh Branch which is sourced, though I'm not so sure it enough for notability purposes. I'm busy with other things so I'm not looking into this too deeply or taking any action.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Pearce

I have re-created this page, which you recently deleted with additional information as to why subject is notable in Jersey, not sure if this is strictly by the book apologies if not. Please see talk page for justification of why page should be there. RichardColgate 21:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's exactly what was missing from the first article, and given its expansion and addressing of issues at the afd (i.e., providing sources and adding additional details of importance), does not qualify as a speedily deletable repost under CSD G4, which does not apply unless the article is "substantially identical to the deleted version and ... any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted." Note, however, that I am not saying it cannot be taken to AFD again, but you have placed the article on the right track.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for sorting that issue with my user page out, I knew it would be simple! Strangely enough I often have a pencil behind my ear (always need em at work). Xarr☎ 22:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Us ear pencil types have to stick together.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Vanish}}

Thanks for fixing the request template link. I thought it was something other than db-author, but couldn't remember (and should technically be doing something other than WP, so couldn't take the time to look too hard). Confusing Manifestation 05:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean (gasp) you actually have obligations outside of Wikipedia? In the real world? That reminds me, I have to go to work tomorrow:-( You're welcome. I also commented on the talk page. In short, looks good!--Fuhghettaboutit 05:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yamaha Past Masters

I'm new to this and don't understand why when I'm constructing a page you've deleted it, even though other pages have less content. I race with this series and so know a lot about it. I recently broke my arm and so can't type that quickly but I tried to include as much info as possible as soon as I saw the speedy deletion threat. I have asked the rest of the race series to comment and they were ready to start today. But it seems that you wiped it before it had a chance to grow (which I thought was the whole point of Wikipedia?). Can you tell me why please? Thanks Nick—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mobile Chicane (talk • contribs)

I have created a user subpage for you on your talk page with the full text of the deleted article. You'll see it as a link at the top called "My Sandbox" or you can just access it here. The article was deleted not as tagged as "empty", but as failing to provide any assertion of importance or signifiance pursuant to CSD A7. Please also see our general notability guideline. The word notability has a special meaning here; it doesn't mean fame or worth, but whether the article has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources which verify its content. Let me explain a bit more about deletion (and see generally, Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?).
There are three processes under which mainspace articles are deleted: 1) speedy deletion (deletion without debate, only for articles meeting clear criteria); 2) proposed deletion ("prod"; article deleted after five days if no one removes the template from the article) and 3) Articles for deletion ("AfD"; debate on the merits under various polices such as Wikipedia:Notability). To take the article out of speedy deletion range, all you need is an assertion of significance or importance, which the article did not contain. However, even if an article meets that loose threshold, and is, thus, not subject to deletion without debate, it must cite to reliable sources, as I elaborated on earlier, or it will likely be deleted upon debate at WP:AFD. Note also, that we have a guideline strongly discouraging those with a conflict of interest from writing articles about themselves/people they know/organizations they are involved with. Despite this, if you can create the article in a proper form (i.e. citing to real, independent, reliable sources) you should be okay. So please go ahead and flesh out the article (less hurriedly if you'd like!) and repost when it's ready.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the advice and guidance I think the page is now ready to repost. Can you tell you how I get it out of my sandbox and onto the main pages please? Thanks Nick

[edit] CUEGLOSS

I think your edit with the summary of "No most American tables do not use napless cloth, the opposite is true (Simonis, granito etc. are only used on high end tables, though common U.S. cloth is not directional like snooker cloth)" may need to be undone in some form, and the offending text in question reworded (I agree it wasn't well worded). I'm almost certain that the point of it was that UK snooker tables have a directional nap (to such an extent that it affects shot trajectories much like grass directionality on a putting green) and that carom and US pool tables do not use cloth with this "feature", whether the cloth is fuzzy (bar) or smooth (high-end pool hall and home). That probably does deserve mention. That much is sourceable, now that I've found my Shamos Enc. again after hours of box-digging in the garage (maybe the Stein/Rubino monsterbook can also source that , but I just yesterday started the tables+cloth+accessories chapter...) What the deal is with most US snooker tables or UK pool tables I dunno - do they go with the table/game tradition or with the national one? NB: Sorry for my conspicuous absence lately. I'm taking summer classes to inch towards finishing my degree (years after the fact - I'm 38!) and they are pretty gruelling. I haven't had much time to spare for pick-a-weedia. Of course, being on multiple league teams every week probably doesn't help in that regard. Heh. But, a good time! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey stanton! Goddamn you're right. I was just writing a post responding saying we need to talk about directionality but not introduce incorrect information and—this is why sourcing is so fucking important—I was going to change the entry to talk about distinction between "regular nap" and directional nap" and upon researching, discovered I and everyone around me has been using the word nap wrong all these years. Everyone I know calls thick, non-combed cloths "nappy cloths", as opposed to cloths like Simonis! Apparently that is just not correct. I'll fix the entry tonight, with sourcing this time. Hope your classes are going well. I've been doing mostly admin stuff and am also more busy this time of year, so I haven't been writing article:-(
Keen. The Nap DAB page may be of some use; it has more than one textile-related entry, such that I don't this using it to mean "fuzzy" rather than "directionally fuzzy" is incorrect per se, just ambiguous. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your reply re: Stack Bundles

Your answer was very helpful. Thank you so much for taking the time to reply so thoroughly. I'm still learning some of the deeper ins-and-outs of Wikipedia, and your reply re: longevity of notability was particularly enlightening. I appreciate it. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help! For better or worse, there are a lot of ins-and-outs to Wikipedia and navigating among them can be difficult. By the way, my talk page is an open door. If you have any questions about anything, or want a second opinion on some issue, please drop by.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Has This Established Notability?

This article: The Grace Evangelical Society. Sources have been listed, it seems, on Talk:The Grace Evangelical Society and if that's enough, I'd like to remove the tag, since I hate tagging legit articles by mistake. -WarthogDemon 16:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say it has not established notability, but I do think it has asserted importance/significance/notability enough to take it out of CSD A7 range. That distinction is crucial; speedy deletion under A7 does not consider whether a subject is notable, only whether there is an assertion thereof. Of course you can and should remove the A7 tag. The fact that an article is no longer a speedy candidate does not, of course, mean you can't prod it (which wouldn't be useful here, given the active contesting of deletion) or take it to afd, where establishment of notability on the merits would be a proper subject of inquiry. Cheers!--Fuhghettaboutit 16:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I've made it here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Grace Evangelical Society. And this next thing might be nothing but for some reason it has a box underneath it here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 22 that I'm not sure what it means. Did I mess up something? -WarthogDemon 16:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Having trouble figuring out where that's propogating from. It's the template {{Discussion blanked}}. I don't think it's part of or a problem with your nomination text at all; it certainly doesn't appear in the text of the afd notice or the afd page for the article. I searched today's afd page in edit mode to see if it's there and it's not, so I think it's transcluded inside another AfD but somehow appearing below yours. I could be wrong about all this. In any case, I suspect that once another nomination is added, it will move up to below that one, consistent with whatever bug it is a result of. Still, not sure:-(--Fuhghettaboutit 17:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Strange, another one has been added but it stuck to mine. There's also another one further down the list . . . is there a place on Wikipedia to report wikicentipedes (bugs)? -WarthogDemon 17:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Yup, it's sticking to yours. You might try dropping a note at WP:VP/T, linking to both the debate page and today's afd page and pointing out that it's the second entry at the time of writing.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Reported. Crazy little thing. O_o Next thing you know, we'll probably get an afd entry on the log page written in runes... -WarthogDemon 17:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Er, whoops. :) -WarthogDemon 17:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
This Roman alphabet you keep writing in here is very confusing to me. Please repost in a less cryptic alphabet; say অসমীয়া.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay this is really weird . . . the one on mine vanished but the other one is still there. -WarthogDemon 17:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Bugs are buggy. I'm not surprised. Still, would be nice to know what was creating the problem.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Just, fyi, the problem has now been fixed. One of the entries (neither of the two) had somehow been transcluded twice or something. O_o -WarthogDemon 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Editor Review

Hello! As I have run into you on Wikipedia, I was wondering if you would be willing to comment in my editor review. I know you are probably busy with other contributions to the project, but I would greatly appreciate any comments or criticism that you have that could make me a better editor! Thanks very much for your time and consideration, bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 13:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just following up on my previous comment, still hoping you would have time to review me. It has been nearly a week now since I put up my review, and I still have not gotten much feedback. I would really like to know how I'm doing from many points of view, to help figure out the quality of my work so far and how to improve it in the future. I'm sure you are busy, but if you could just drop me a note letting me know whether or not you'll be able to do it, that would be terrific. Thank you so much for your time. Best regards, bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 19:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for not getting back to you. If I had planned on declining I would have done so immediately. Since I planned to do the review, but kept not getting around to it, I didn't comment, as my response was going to be the review. Still, bad form on my part. I'm a bit busy right now. Give me some time.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted deletion debates

Sure, I'll restore them. Thanks, NawlinWiki 02:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake

I'm sorry about that. You were indeed right, I was trying to copy and paste. I must've copied and deleted wrong. I'm still learning to use code here on Wikipedia. Forgive me? Take care and have a lovely rest of your week...

--Candy156sweet 04:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for being understanding. :) --Candy156sweet 05:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Deleted deletion debate

Hi. How's everything? A while back you deleted Talk:Pro-American sentiment under G8 after closing the afd. The talk page, however, was an archived deletion debate of an earlier "votes for deletion" (VfD) debate. See Wikipedia:Archived delete debates/May to Jun 2004, where this page is listed, now red-linked. This comes up as a result of this post at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Always a glutton for tedious research, I am going through the many red-linked pages and notifying the deleting admins. Can you restore the page? Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing there to say that anything on the Talk page has been preserved as a result of an earlier debate and should be retained rather than deleted. Can you adjust that omission once I recreate the Talk page, please. It seems strange to see a Talk page with no associated article; it leaves open the possibility that another admin will delete it as a G8 case too. Regards, (aeropagitica) 09:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
How's this:
This page is preserved as an archive of the associated article page's "votes for deletion" debate (the forerunner of articles for deletion). Please do not modify this page, nor delete it as an orphaned talk page.

Ideally, the stuff would be moved to a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/... subpage, and a redirect left in place (and admins who delete such redirects should be slapped with a wet trout). But maybe there was a reason for not doing that, back when the system was changed? Carcharoth 12:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And the archive box could be turned into a template and a category included, so people could slowly carry out such moves if they were needed. Carcharoth 12:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Replied at the discussion at WT:AFD.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:How to adjust brakes

I've restored this talk page. -- Longhair\talk 00:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cabinteely Football Club

I would like to know why it is that Cabinteely Football Club was deleted by you? Everything in the article was truthful and accurate?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.44.88.239 (talk • contribs).

A bit first about why this was deleted. An author placed the prod template on the article. Under that process if no one objects, either in writing or by removing the tag, and five days pass, the article can be deleted. Requests to restore are usually granted pro forma when articles are deleted through this process, so I am granting your request. However, note that the article is still subject to deletion under another process, such as at WP:AFD.
There are some problems with the article you should be aware of. First, the earlier versions of the article were a direct copyright violation of this website. Unless they release the material under the GFDL, or other free license, that material must not be added back. Second, the article is completely unverified. It does not cite to any reliable sources for its content. This goes hand in hand with our notability requirements and prohibition against original research. So, as you say the content was truthful and accurate: show us, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. By the way, the external link is not a useful source for most purposes because it is not independent of the subject.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CLUEGLOSS split

I think you'll be interested (one way or another!) in Talk:Glossary of cue sports terms#Split proposal. NB: I filed a sockpuppet report about that Goof ball guy and his pair o' puppets. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Stanton, I have to give it some thought. On the secondary note, did you see the new admission at the debate and his request for deletion?--Fuhghettaboutit 03:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yah; due to the WP:SSP I filed, "all of him" got indef-blocked. That was actually a little harsher than I'd intended. He seemed to be in genuine contrition. Indef'ing the puppet accounts and temp-blocking the pupetteer account with a admonishments would probably have been enough. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
PS: Any chance you could pick up ISBN 1-55821-797-5, Shamos's 1999 The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards (emphasis added)? Same book as you have, but with revisions. It can be had pretty cheap, usually, from Amazon used dealers. I'd like to eventually upgrade all the TIEOB citations to the more authoritative edition, and I already have a {{Shamos1999}} up and running. With further improvements to come: I added a "chapter" parameter to the also-new {{BCA2006}} (I assume the 2007 ed. is out, but I don't have it yet) that I will soon implement in the Shamos1999 template so that the specific entry can be sourced, as well as a page number, to make it easier to verify (sourceable facts from T[N]IEOB are not always in an entry with an intuitive name, after all). Since the sourcing of this stuff is mostly you and I, it would be extra-keen if we were (literally!) "on the same page" with regard to Shamos. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
<Ping>? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for not not pinging sooner. I'm sure the new book has some extra tidbits but the fact it exists doesn't deprecate the sourcing with the original version. It would take a great deal of effort to retrace all my sourcing and replace the page numbers. Root canal comes to mind as a more pleasant alternative! I'm not saying I won't pick up that new version some time just out of curiosity, but I'm not planning on seeking it out. Sorry. Just don't see the need.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of JoVE

Hi, you removed the entry for the Journal of Visualized Experiments. It has been noted in the press and is of interest to the life science community. Please restore it. I posted neutral information about JoVE and would be happy to add additional information that you feel would be of interest to the readers.Nikitab 21:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied at talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Of Whales and Articles for Deletion....

Happy to contribute. I do think it's an important discussion, and I thought your argument was very well set out. I'm surprised more editors haven't weighed in. It looks like at least some consensus might be reached with the one particular editor who did contribute, anyway. :) Moonriddengirl 23:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin

How's admin life treating you? I notice that it's certainly eaten into your editing time. I've gotten some more nominator offers, including one only 2 days ago, but have been a bit reluctant (there are still some hard feelings I'm sure from the pro-WP:ATT camp, since I was one of the most vocal opponents and a partic'lar stickler for WP:PROCESS in that fiasco; and I've also seen what it's done to your mainspace time availability.) Basically, I'm not sure whether it's worth it. I think I'd be pretty useful, what with a watchlist around 2700+ pages now and vandalhunting all through them, and a lot of XfDing under the belt, but I just dunno. What are you going through, + and -, with it? Maybe this is too personal a question for wikispace; I'm e-mailable of course. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article on Wendeen Eolis

Thank you so much for helping, I would have never figured out on my own that the extra spaces should be blamed. Another question: there are identical footnotes however they have different reference numbers, should not they be the same? Example: 3 & 23 Thank you! Ildarspb 14:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Regarding the identical foonotes issue, click here for the answer. If you have any other questions, do not hesitate to ask, anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
More like this one; XML requires that parameter values be "quoted". :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

SMcCandlish and Fuhghettaboutit, Thank you so much for corrections! Ildarspb 03:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit 03:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VANDALISM? SPAM?!!

OH, SO YOU THINK THAT I VANDALISED THE CATEGORY:WLFH, HUH?! WELL, I DON'T KNOW, CUZ I WAS JUST TRYING TO IMPROVE THE GRAMMAR ON THAT PAGE, BEFORE YOU REVERTED IT, AND COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT A PIPE LINK IS (DON'T GIVE ME ANY LINKS TO WP HELP PAGES, EXPLAIN YOURSELF!!!). ♫Deathgleaner 22:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

hasta la vista, baby.

Putting aside your shrill, demanding tone, I will indeed explain. A piped link is a type of link in which one side of the code tells the software where to go when clicked on and the other side, separated from the other by a pipe (this: "|" symbol), tells the software what to display.
As an example, the text: "Typing in [[All caps|all caps on the internet]] has come to be identified with "shouting" or attention-seeking behaviour, displays as: "Typing in all caps on the internet has come to be identified with "shouting" or attention-seeking behaviour", with the linked text taking one to the article, All caps.
The point in my original post on your talk page is really highlighted by the fact that you don't know what a piped link is—a very basic wiki markup feature—and yet you deleted those as well as other features of the page. Deleting such material when you don't know its purpose is pretty reckless. Likewise, you also deleted the interlanguage links, which looked like this:
[[vi:Thể loại:Thành viên cần giúp đỡ]]
[[pl:Kategoria:Wikipedyści potrzebujący pomocy]]
[[zh-yue:Category:叫緊救命嘅維基友]]
Those tell the software to link on the toolbox menu on the left hand side of the page to the page's equivalent page in Wikipedias in other languages.
As I already explained, you also deleted the page's category and directed users to place the very template the whole page is geared toward on the wrong page. So in sum, your "improvement" was destructive and reckless and the tenor of your above post is not placing you in a good light.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Abdillahi Suldaan Tima-Cadde

This article has already been speedy deleted once today, this one you removed the SD tag on was the re-creation of that page. Please check out the user's talk page, he has a habit of creating pages like this one. WebHamster 00:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted the article as a copyvio, but the fact that another administrator improperly deleted that article under A7 is no reason for me to follow suit. Specifically, "he became famous for his patriotic poems and was soon a national figure" is a clear assertion of importance. This article is a perfect example of why deleting (and tagging) articles that do not meet the criteria they are tagged under is a problem. A quick google search under the apparent various spellings of his name reveals that he may indeed be notable. Of course, there is no necessity of showing notability to avoid speedy deletion, all one needs is an assertion. When the assertion is present, it's much more likely you're dealing with a legitimate topic.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improper CSD tagging

Over the last few days I must have done a couple of hundred CSDs whilst new page patrolling. Of that lot I've probably got it wrong a half dozen times. Of the ones I've got wrong a proportion would be down to subjectivism. I am taking your criticism as constructive and am using it to learn more, but at the same time as your criticism is most likely justified I'm not totally sure your tone is. I'm not a schoolboy who does things without thinking. I have years of experience in the music business and sometimes my own personal feelings about what is musically notable does not always match that of WP:Notability (music). 99% of the time I think carefully about what I apply CSD tags to. I'm human and not an automaton as such I make mistakes, I'm also autistic so my way of looking at things is not always commensurate with others. Additionally I do have a deletionist mentality and anything I consider to be borderline I exercise the "be bold" philosophy with the reasoning that anything truly justified for inclusion will resurface. WebHamster 21:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if my tone struck you as churlish. However, the three articles I highlighted as improper are not in a gray area. There are articles that are in between but these are not. Your citation to WP:MUSIC and your statement that you're relying on your experience in the industry and your personal feelings to come to a judgment call leads me to believe that this may be more of a misunderstanding about speedy deletion criteria than anything else.
We do not judge notability when tagging and deleting articles as speedies. That is not our role because deletion on the merits of notability is properly a consensus activity; we consider whether an article is notable directly at afd. All an article needs to avoid deletion under A7 is an assertion of importance. That distinction is crucial. Thus, articles need not cite to any sources, nor state any information that meets any of the criteria at the subject specific guidelines in order to avoid speedy deletion. "They are world renowned..."; "she is Nigeria's preeminent scholar of..."; "he has won numerous awards..." etc. Except where context destroys the assertion (i.e., "she is Nigeria's preeminent scholar of...[insert something silly]"), those are pretty clear assertions of importance.
This is not a matter of deletionism versus inclusionism (many people would classify me as quite deletionist, though I find the whole deletionist/inclusionist stance a false dichotomy). I hope the distinction I'm drawing is clear but let's make no bones about it: The News (band) patently asserts importance, and the propriety of its tagging for speedy deletion under A7 is not a judgment call that reasonable people can disagree about—whether recklessly or on the basis of a misunderstanding of the criteria—it was simply improper as were the other two I found which were tagged within moments of each other. A quick glance at your contributions reveals other recent ones (Mark Mowad, Eric Grossman etc.) And here's the rub and what I'm striving to get across. The News (band) may indeed not be notable. Whether they are or not is irrelevant when tagging the article.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Upground

Hey fuhg, I will try to re-create the upground article. If I dont get a chance to finish it today, what is the corrct code to let you know that the article is not finished and that the notable information that is needed before an article is deleted will soon be updated.Alcoholica1 17:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Alcoholica1. You need not alert me at all. The way it works is that at the moment an article is posted it is automatically listed at newpages where numerous editors monitor what's being posted. If the article fits within one of the criterion for speedy deletion, it may then be tagged for deletion. Adminisitrators then review such tagged articles at (usually through CAT:CSD). So long as the article asserts importance (which it did not before), it should not be speedily deleted but even if such an assertion is made, it is still subject to deletion after debate at articles for deletion. In order to avoid all this mess, what you should do is place reliable sources in the article (best done through inline citations (see WP:CITE), which verify the article's content. Remember that "notabiity" for purposes of Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, means "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources" and not simply fame or importance. See Wikipedia:Notability. See also the subject-specific guideline covering bands at WP:MUSIC. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 17 August 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jimmy Wetch, 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.

--Carabinieri 00:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GUST

why did you remove the tag after less than a week? i don't think your right so i'm reverting. Sherzo 13:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC) can i have an explaination as to why you reverted it? Sherzo 13:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo, the article survived afd. I closed the debate after five days as keep, given the overwhelming consensus at the afd debate. Note that article are not listed for a week but for five days, after which they may be closed at any time (see WP:AFD). You may not modify the closed afd debate; placing the AFD tag linked to a closed debate back in the article is not useful, nor is removing the listing of the result of the debate on the articles talk page. However, you always have the option, if you do not believe the close was proper, of taking it to deletion review.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prods

I do not think that "This article has been tagged as lacking souces for over a year. Articles require independent, reliable sources verifying their content and are presumptively original research in their absence." is a reason for deletion, as WP requires Verifiability, not verified. I remind you that deletion as simply unsourced was proposed as a policy and rejected decisively. I have accordingly deprodded two of the articles you have marked as prods as test cases, Bankruptcy problem and Bankole Dimeji You're of course welcome to take to AfD.

May I make a suggestion--that you give a specific reason for the individual article--it helps other editors evaluate them. Obviously if they actually seem non-notable or otherwise a problem they are perfectly good prods from any point of view & that way nobody will challenge them. And for people, it helps to know their field of activity in the prod reason, so one doesnt waste time looking at stuff one doesnt know enough about to evaluate at all.
This is intended as an friendly move to see what the community thinks. I know you will understand it as such. DGG (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
also deprodded Bank of British West Africa, which I think does have sources. DGG (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
If you are referring to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification I have read it. I simply do not agree that prodding articles for lack of sources is off the table. I am intimately familiar with the distinction between articles that are unverified and unverifiable but I disagree with the conclusions people have drawn that existing policy requires authors to look for sources themselves. Hypothetical sourcing and its usage to deny deletion of actually and entirely unsourced content thoroughly ignores the realities we are faced with and is a systemic cancer on Wikipedia. That is not to say that I have any problem with your deprodding. Anyone can deprod an article and that's fine. You want to see something amazing? Check this out: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. That about one quarter of the articles I prodded. If the proof is in the pudding, that's some mighty tasty results.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but last I looked there are 85,000+ articles in this category, and hundreds that are over a year old. Threatening deletion on a random handful of them in order to get them sourced is disruptive (and not entirely within policy); better to simply work on getting sources for ones you are interested in. PROD's are supposed to be for articles that are obviously outside of the scope and guidelines of Wikipedia, not articles that may be controversial to delete -- as a simply unsourced article would be. Take it to AfD if you must, but if you just want sources for things this is not the best way to go about it. Best, -- phoebe/(talk) 21:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea why the word "but" appears in your first sentence. Indeed, there are many, many unsourced articles over a year old and many more if you remove the time parameter. That fact speaks to the problem that the relatively small number of volunteers such as myself and you who dedicate great deals of time to the project cannot hope to provide that sourcing ourselves. It's not controversial by policy, just to the numerous users who misinterpret policy, fail to understand what it means that this is a tertiary source encyclopedia, and fail to exercise the slightest pragmatism as to how to address the problem. This has allowed an atmosphere in which we have tossed all standards out the window and are celebrating 2,000,000 "articles" when there are probably less than 100,000 pages that that word should be associated with and the hole we have dug for ourselves is only getting worse. There is no end in sight because good faith but wrongheaded editors quash every proposal that could even begin to address the issue. All unsourced material is a placeholder for real content and in many cases is worse than no content. Bare bones stubs just perform the function of an index with easy access to start writing. Unsourced articles with content are actively harmful. I believe in what we are doing here and I am sad that we are drifting so far off course.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DROD Monsters

Please create a copy of the DROD Monsters article you deleted and move it to User:Maurog/DROD_Monsters. Ditto for DROD Elements at User:Maurog/DROD_Elements. Thank you. • Maurog • 11:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] August 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The August 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 03:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 22 Greatest Voices in Music

22 Greatest Voices in Music seems to have been revived after deletion. The user who re-created the page seems to have joined Wikipedia after this page was deleted in this discussion. Currently, it looks a lot like its state before deletion. I don't know what should happen in this case, so I'm letting you (the person who closed the debate) know. Have a nice day, Lisatwo 18:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Deleted as a repost and salted to prevent further recreation.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Vocoder Songlist

It's unfortunate you deleted the Vocoder songlist under the topic VOCODER. It was the only real list of some of the vocoder music available that I could find on the net. I was currently working on getting the albums as I could find. I live in the foreign country and finding these albums in stores was not always easy, sometimes waiting months for a cd that I had ordered. Although I wasn't completely familiar with all the bands/songs on that list, most of them were, in fact, correct, and I even learned of some bands that I have never heard of. Before erasing it, did you happen to check if there is another resource online that contains a list such as the one you erased? Instead of deleting it, I would have had nothing against (if you so insisted) you adding a comment regarding your opinion of it's "unbased origin". Little bit of a god complex, have we? The list wasn't hurting anyone or anything by being there. Many fans of vocoder vocals worked together to put that list up, and one person had the power and desire to erase it, it's really too bad, and you've disappointed me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.58.18 (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You know what disappoints me? When a person make assumptions without doing his or her own due diligence; when that person doesn't have the simple courtesy to make sure they know what they are talking about, that they understand the context of some matter, before vomiting forth ad hominem attacks. A little research would have revealed that there is a process that was linked in the deletion summary (which you carelessly failed to provide, nor did you provide the article's name, so I had to search high and low for what you were talking about) called proposed deletion under which articles are deleted if no one objects to the tagging after five days and the deletion is uncontroversial.
You would have also learned that this is an encyclopedia, so it is not controversial to delete an article that doesn't cite to reliable sources that verify its content, and which appears to be a directory of loosely associated topics. You might have also learned that I didn't tag the article, (though I agree with the tagger's rationale). And most importantly, that all you needed to do to have the page restored was to politely asked me to do so or asked at WP:DRV, since if you read the proposed deletion page you would have also learned that since articles are deleted under that process without debate, (as opposed to a more formal deletion process such as at Articles for deletion), restoration is a simple matter, generally granted pro forma. Despite your obnoxious post, since it was a prod I am restoring the article.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you notice that this list has been created by an indef blocked user? Anw, it's ok you restored it.Doktor Who 00:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey Doktor. How's everything? Thanks for stopping by. Doesn't really matter who created the article since it has multiple authors and once posted, became GFDL material anyway. On a more serious note, Who's your favorite? Tom Baker? Jon Pertwee?...--Fuhghettaboutit 02:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, now that I read back through the posts, your reply seemed just about as obnoxious as mine was. That being said, I might have deserved it; the comment about a "god complex" was inappropriate and I'm sorry. Even though I'm not a power user of Wiki, I thought I could give my strong opinion without being severely stomped on. I tried to modify my text code so the subject link would work for the original article, and couldn't get it to work (after getting frustrated, I put the topic in CAPS, it was the least I could do; now I have it figured out I think). Furthermore, there are alot of abbreviations/acronyms used here and I don't know what they mean, and that also didn't help my attempt at comprehension of the subject matter herein. I read through many wiki pages referring to deletion procedures and it read alot like a court document to me, I didn't have the time I needed to learn about the whole process. I'll will read through them again more thoroughly. Had I known the article could be restored, I would have simply asked for it to be (yes I know how to ask nicely). I assumed the original document was gone. Well, in any case, thank you for putting the list back up despite my inappropriate post. I understand that the encyclopedia needs to stay justifiable in it's presentation, and wonder if some more information could be added to the songlist header regarding its unclear sources and "loose association" to the base topic so others users aren't confused about its content? Thank you again, and please, continue the patience with the little people :) --Dereliktae 10:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that and you're welcome. Someone may eventually nominate that article for formal deletion, done after debate at Articles for deletion, which is much more likely if it remains generally unsourced. It's a bit off my expertise (and interest) area to help source it. If you find sources for particular entries and you want help citing them (despite our rocky start) feel free to stop by and I'll help out.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Forget what I just said about "eventually"; it's already been nominated for deletion. If you'd like to share your thoughts, go to the article and you'll see the deletion notice at the top with a link to the debate page. The debate (it is not a vote) will stay open for approximately five days. You are welcome to share your thoughts there but a word of advice: stay civil; nothing will get you discounted faster than writing with your dander up. I suggest before commenting there you read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and Wikipedia:deletion policy. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, my response is here. Incidentally, I read through Arguments to avoid, and had to chuckle at myself, because had I read through this before my first post here at Wiki, then I would have pretty quickly run out of something to say :) If I find out it won't be deleted, then I can start linking sources. I am now going to go check out citing/sourcing regulations so I know better what I'm up against. --Dereliktae 07:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)