User talk:SoWhy/Archive 15

Well, talk about interesting stuff spawned by typos. Unfortunately, none of that could ever be intended by my typo, I think I just confused your last name with another admin's, Roger Davies (talk · contribs). Maybe he can share such stories about his last name? =) SoWhy 21:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

cool, I'm definitely a "click-read" kind of guy. Also, I wanted to thank you for your help and guidance on the RFA-learn thing. I'm reading through the stuff you've mentioned, and followed with

 ? 

22:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. I'll help you as best as I can, no question. :-)

Don't know Roger that well but he seems nice enough. He's an arb, so he is used to dealing with people asking him stuff. In the spirit of wiki,

assume he will not mind. If he does, he can always say so, can't he? :-) Regards SoWhy

06:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel your decline was misunderstood. Your reason for the decline was that Solis is on a network. WABC is owned by ABC, but they are the local station, reporting local news like any other local affiliate. He's not a network correspondant. Surely you aren't saying that everyone who is simply a reporter for a local station is automatically notable do you? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

First of,

A7, despite commonly misunderstood, is not about notability. I have not made any statement about whether the subject is really notable. I'm just saying that working for a notable station on a notable show (Eyewitness News) is indication that the subject might meet the guidelines for inclusion. Whether they really do is nothing that can or indeed should be determined through speedy deletion. I'm sorry if my decline reason was unclear, it should have been "an indication of importance/significance". I'll keep it in mind to be more careful. Regards SoWhy

13:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• A7 says "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.". I used the term notability because it is simply shorter to type. Solis is a local reporter from a local station, just like thousands of other reporters. There is nothing in the article (which has no sources) to indicate why he is any different than those other thousands. The sole mention of anything making him different is that he mispronounced the name of a drug on air. "Eyewitness News" is not a notable show. If you look at the article you linked to, you'll see it is the generic name for many local newscasts. I'd ask you to look at this and reconsider what you find significant about his career. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You might use "notability" because it's shorter to type but A7 actually makes a distinction that "importance or significance" is a lower standard than notability. There does not have to be any indication of notability for an subject to meet this standard. If you read the

WP:AFD venues. Regards SoWhy

15:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy! I'd like your opinion on whether or not I should request semi-protection for

I feel highly appreciated that you seek my opinion. So here it is: No, you shouldn't. Any request at the current moment will almost certainly be declined. There have only been two such edits in over a week and as Wikipedia is build on the spirit of "anyone can edit", protection will usually not be used in such cases to allow this. Instead, you might want to point out the use of

user warnings-style template to do so if it becomes tiresome. Regards SoWhy

16:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: I just noticed that you are exactly 5 months younger than me. Nevermind this remark, I just tend to find such things amusing (don't ask me why). ;-)

Thanks! You have been a great help. Happy (belated) birthday, by the way. :) -Sketchmoose (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. If you need any other assistance, feel free to contact me at any time. And thanks :-) SoWhy 18:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I hope you don't mind me asking you questions, because currently I'm unsure whether I am irritating you or not. Now I will ask you a question. I was going for admin coaching with the only person who was noted available, but then he said he would not be able to at the time, so I was wondering if you knew anyone that wasnt on the list that could help me. Also , since it's Administrator Review, can I still write a review? Cheers!--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 15:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome, so don't worry. You can ask Juliancolton (talk · contribs). While the page notes him having three coachees, Wadester16 has passed RFA in the meantime. He's a great admin and you'd be lucky if he coaches you.

And anyone can review at Administrator's review, the name alludes to the fact that the reviewed are admins and the scope is their admin actions rather than overall editing as with ER. Regards SoWhy 15:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to join the nom party if you wish. I think you'd be a good addition. You are certainly one of a handful of editors/admins whose opinions I look for... Hobit (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. As I outlined on his talkpage though, I will probably only have little time for Wikipedia the next days and thus probably lack the time needed to vet a candidate appropriately. I'll look forward to that RFA though :-) Regards SoWhy 07:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe two users, Ryulong and Daedalus969, have followed me from the David Boothroyd MfD incident and are opposing me in an unrelated AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marcelo_Lucero without actually looking into the article's context or sourcing; that is to say, I believe their actions at this unrelated AfD to be thoughtless wiki-stalking/harassment. The best example of this is that Daedalus969 claimed the murder was too recent for an article despite it having taken place in November of 2008. Could you please investigate this and advise me on how to proceed? TAway (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes: Let it go. Honestly. You have said what you needed to say to oppose deletion of the article and any further engagement can only hurt your cause. The AFD will be judged (or should be at least) by the strength of arguments and not by !votes, so there is nothing more you can do to influence the outcome except adding further policy-based reasons why this should be kept. On a side note, as this is an article about a

WP:BLP1E, it might be wise to rewrite it to cover the event rather than the person. Regards SoWhy

21:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that you abused your admin powers when you chose the point to revert to when intervening, since you reverted to a previous point before when you judged an edit war began. An impartial application of a protected page would have simply preserved the current version.Archaic d00d (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Per our

protection policy (and I quote): "Administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists". Since the dispute began with your edits on May 27, it's perfectly fine to revert to the previous version prior to this dispute. Regards SoWhy

12:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists."::::

There is certianly no clear points that an edit violates "vandalism, copyright violations or defamation of living persons". The quote was a quote widely published in Australian newspapers, it is NOT defamation and the article took no position on it being true.

This is hardly a clear point of any of these things, revert the page back to the last edit before you decided to lock it.Archaic d00d (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You will notice that the third sentence you quoted (which I also quoted above) contains the word "also" and thus it is allowed to revert back even in cases where there is no policy violation. As such, since the edit-warring was about your additions, logically the point before those additions is an "old version of the page predating the edit war" as described by the policy. Regards SoWhy 16:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Your premises are flawed. It's not about my additions, it was about my additions and Jeff79's additions, WWGB's additions. Maybe you would have a point if one editor was changing the article, but when several are then there is no clear point when an edit war begins. Btw I think you are putting too much weight on the word "also", i think the above paragprah should be interpreted to simply mean admins can revert if a clear case of vandalism, copyright violations or defamation exists. The other problem I have is why on earth would you lock a page untill November 12? That seems excessive, why not just a week?Archaic d00d (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. If you look at the history of the article, you will notice that there was no edit-warring between May 21 and May 27 and just started on May 27. As such, the last edit from May 21 marks the last somewhat stable version which had no active dispute about it (at least via edit-warring). So reverting to that point is in line with the policy.

I'm afraid but you seem to be the one misunderstanding policy. If the protected version contains vandalism, BLP violations or copyright violations, then admins have to revert to an earlier version because that version cannot be allowed to be seen. In comparison, the next sentence uses the word "may" to indicate that admins are also allowed to revert when such issues are not present but only as written in the policy, i.e. to a point predating the edit-warring, not to a version they prefer. I have done so.

As for the end date, I have taken the already set protection date instead of indefinite. The article was set on semi-protection before, ending on November 12 and this way the admin lifting full protection can restore the previous semi protection easily. The time is not important anyway, protection will be lifted as soon as there is consensus about the disputed content, no matter when that is. Regards SoWhy 22:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

OK my friend, as it's written I'll admit you interpreted the policy correctly. I read the same paragraph initially and thought it only gave admins the right to edit when important policies were blatantly violated. But that sentence which you mention does exist though I read it from the perspective that in a clear case of BLP, copyright violations or vandalism admins can revert to before the edit war began if it can easily be determined. But no, it says "also" meaning aswell as in the cases of the previous sentence. As I mentioned, I am quite surprised by the policy, so I looked further into the issue. I checked the talk page archives but only found a recent discussion where a similar issue was discussed, that freezing the page in the current version rewards edit warring and admins should choose other versions. The consensus was strongly(in fact I believe unanimously) opposed to such a policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy/Archive_8#Protecting_the_current_version_rewards_revert_warriors Here is the origins of the sentence http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Protection_policy&diff=239521389&oldid=238576582 , I would remove it now myself but I'd like to talk to you first. I think the reason it has not been deleted in the mean time is that other people have misinterpreted the policy in a similar way to how I did, given how strong the opposition to giving admins discretionary powers to choose versions was. Locking a page is meant to be a completely neutral move and in no way a punishment or endorsement. I'd like you to revert the page back(to the version where you locked it) and put a realistic end date (like 7 days after you locked it, I don't think a longer time is justified even if it makes it easier) since this is a developing issue (with Matthew Johns possibably launching legal action). Archaic d00d (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think you should revert back that change without discussion. Per

WP:SILENCE, it's usually assumed that if an edit is allowed to stand for such a long time, then it represents consensus and should not be reverted without a new consensus. I think if it has been added by an established user and admin and has not been challenged for almost 10 months, it's as Hiding says in his edit summary: Common practice. And as policies usually just document what is accepted standard, changing it would require that standard to change first. If you think this part is incorrect, please open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

outlining your reasoning first.

But the main point is, I was following policy and I am still neutral. I have not reverted back because it's a version I prefer but because it's the last stable version before the dispute. As such, the revert is still not an endorsement or punishment and thus not in violation of policy.

As for the protection length, usually pages locked for edit-warring reasons are locked with an end date of "indefinite" because any amount of time can just mean that those edit-warring will just wait for that time to pass and then continue. I decided not to do so in this case based on the way the protection system works. As it was previously semi-protected until that date, the previous admin's decision will usually be restored once full protection is lifted. The admin doing so can now just change the protection level without having to add the end time manually (as it's preserved) while the long time is pretty equal to "indefinite". As I explained above, the time does not mean it cannot (and will not) unprotected sooner. As the protection template says, "until 12 November 2009 or until disputes have been resolved." So as soon as the dispute has been resolved, the protection will be lifted, no matter the time listed. Regards SoWhy 08:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You were not following wikipedia policy. You may have acted in accordance with wikipedia policy(as written*) but because you used discretionary powers you weren't simply following. You say that you are neutral, but I'm not convinced. This is why the consensus was against giving admins such discretion, because people will so often accuse admins of bias. For instance you made a judgement call about when the edit war began, but did it begin then? or when it was reverted? Does the fact that an unrelated change was made (which you reverted (which is a shame because that addition was correcting an obvious error)) obscure a clear starting point? I find appeals to authority unconvincing. *I think this was a change against consensus which slipped under the radar, and Hiding should have known better if he/she is so experienced. As for your

WP:SILENCE justification, "Silence is the weakest form of consensus" compare that to this emphatic consensus agianst any such moves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy/Archive_8#Protecting_the_current_version_rewards_revert_warriorsArchaic d00d (talk

) 10:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, no admin can be expected to check all discussions whether every part of policy text really reflects consensus and as such, current consensus, if you like it or not, is the version that exists uncontestedly. The discussion you point out happened months before the change and as such, consensus might have changed to favor the version that policy currently reflects. That does not make following this policy a breach of its spirit. And as such it's perfectly possible that a change 4 months afterwards reflected the current consensus and the fact that noone contested it, serves to confirm that this might in fact might have been the case.

I did not make a judgment call as to when the edit-warring began. I just reverted back to a stable version that was clearly before that, which both sides can agree was before the edit-warring (even you have to agree that this version was in fact before the edit-warring even if you think there were versions afterwards that were also before it). If you think I acted outside policy, I'm sorry but I do not see that this is the case. You are of course welcome to raise the subject at the

admins' noticeboard if you think this is really the case. Regards SoWhy

11:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You made a judgement call (both in using the policy and in determining how to use it), it might have been easy for you, but does an edit war start with the an edit that will be reverted, or it's reversion? And like I said you reverted a correction to an obvious grammatical error aswell. It's not clear if that means you shouldn't revert it or not under the current (well not if my reversion is standing ;-) policy (as written). I thnk you are wrong to make the judgement that what is called the "weakest form of consensus" is greater than the consensus in the talk page archives. You should have let my edit stand on the policy page, the burden of proof is on that policy to demonstrate it's consensus (given that silence is weak, and even when looking straight at it i thought it couldn't possibably mean what you said it did, and the overwhelming consenus against giving admins discretion apart from BPL etc). I think a main reason that people don't like giving discretion powers is to protect admins like you from editors like me, because any judgement call will annoy some editor who will annoy you in your talk page ;-)Archaic d00d (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(←) I do not think I did but I doubt I can convince you about that, seeing that you are biased in the dispute at hand while I have not the slightest interest in the subject. As I tried to explain to you, consensus can change in the time since that discussion and the edit by Hiding, as well as the fact that this was not reverted, indicates it. Your changes to the policy page are unfortunate and reflect an older consensus that is obsolete. You should not have reverted me per

WP:BRD, the burden of proof that this is not consensus lies on the one removing it, after they were reverted (because the revert shows an active disagreement). I will raise the issue on the talk page as you seem unwilling to discuss it with the community. Regards SoWhy

11:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

As sure as I can be of anything in the external world, you made a judgement call (of when the war began, that it was clear, and that you would use discretionary powers). I understand your explanation. However, I am sceptical that consenus could change from strongly opposed to full acceptance in such a time period. I think people just missed it, and silence is the weakest form of consensus. I knew you would revert, but you shouldn't have reverted me because when you did that you implied "silence on a policy that might have flown under the radar, and had no disccusion > strong consensus against similar policy on talk page", I don't think that can be justified. But I want to be civil, what do we agree on? That your interepretation of the policy as it was written was correct. Is that all? I know I've argued alot with you here, but no hard feelings from me ;-) Hopefully, we atleast clear up a policy from thisArchaic d00d (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I need help from an experienced Wikipedian, and I saw your name over at

I need your advice concerning

The goals of the WikiProject are:

1. Increase awareness of readers of the existence of the outlines on Wikipedia
2. Complete the existing outlines
3. Create an outline for every subject that is extensive enough to benefit from having an outline (core subjects and major or extensive fields). There are thousands of these.
4. Recruit as many editors to work on these as possible (we need thousands of editors working on these)
5. Surpass portals in number by the end of the summer, and leave them in the dust by the end of the year
6. Get the major outline subject areas displayed on the Main Page (in place of or in addition to the portal links at the top of the page)
7. Increase the OOK to higher quality than
   Propaedia
   volume).

I'm very interested in your comments on how to achieve these goals.

Also I'm interested in every possible way of reaching readers and editors of Wikipedia. How can I get the most eyes and typing fingers on Wikipedia's outlines? Contacting editors directly without a reason relevant to them is spam, which I'd like to avoid. There are 75,000 regular editors on Wikipedia, and I want to contact all of them. But how do I do it?

Directly or indirectly, I don't care which, piecemeal or all-at-once, all methods are fine with me. But I've got to find ways. I need your advice.

I would also like to know how to find or attract editors to create new outlines. And I need advice on finding editors to help write the new outline article mentioned above (it needs to be fleshed out, completely referenced, and brought to featured article status).

Please recommend anyone you know who might be interested in sinking their teeth into a project like this. Or ways to reach groups of editors. Or ways to reach all editors. I welcome any and all recommendations and advice you might have.

And any thoughts on attaining the WikiProject goals above.

I look forward to your reply on my talk page.

The Transhumanist 03:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please be advised the per

Sorry for that, I have not noticed the previous prod. You are correct of course. Regards SoWhy 16:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The D'ark Night Film Festival - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You might be pleased with this result. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm an inclusionist, so "pleased" is probably the wrong word. It was the outcome that had to be done to remove the worst articles that really do not deserve a place here. Regards SoWhy 13:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by

Thanks for removing that tag that my bot re added, I'll probably put something in so it doesn't edit user pages unles it's a general tag or user space.... Anyway, thanks again - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I just left you a message to request just that ;-) Regards SoWhy 06:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I' still trying to keep track of all it's contribs at the moment due to it's recent implentation. I'll add this in about 15 minutes. Gotta go to the shop first, so I'll leave it running for that time. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added that now, so we shouldn't have that particular incident again. Happy editing :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How did you make that alert box show up at the top of the page when editing this page??
-Garrett W. (Talk / Contribs / Email) 06:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Editnotice. Regards SoWhy 06:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok, cool. Also one other question: if you go to my page and look on the right where my programming languages are, why can't I put a box in there that requires a parameter by using {{!}} ?
-Garrett W. (Talk / Contribs / Email) 12:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Good question...I have no idea. You might want to ask an expert on templates like Nihiltres (talk · contribs) or Happy-melon (talk · contribs) for help (see Category:User template coder-5). Regards SoWhy 12:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you deleted User:Ikip/amib, but it was linked as evidence in an ongoing RFAr case. I was curious as to the reason it was deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As indicated by my deletion summary, it was on request by the user in whose namespace it existed via e-mail (as they are currently blocked from editing). I was not aware of it being used in an ArbCom case but if needed, all members of ArbCom can easily access it, as can you. If you think it's needed for your defence in aforementioned case, you are free to restore it and move it to your userspace for future reference. Regards SoWhy 07:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't worried about it being unreadable, was just curious what led to the deletion. Thanks much! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any remaining disagreement at Talk:Bernoulli number, and the story has left the front pages of all the news aggregators, so I think the article can be unprotected now. Cheers, Melchoir (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected. Regards SoWhy 08:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Melchoir (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam mugliston (talk • contribs) 10:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What for? It will be deleted, I have no doubt about that. It just can't be speedy deleted but as

db-author}} to save yourself and others the time until that happens. Regards SoWhy

10:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that you declined a speedy deletion on above article. being a small group part of a large event does not constitute notability. The article makes not assertion of notability, and after a lengthy discussion I had with the page creator discussion it because rather clear that while thee author feels that his group is important (they always do), there is no substance to that assertion at all. Passportguy (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A7 is not about notability, neither existing nor asserted. It's about the possibility that the subject might be important or significant in any way and this is usually possible when they are part of a larger, notable entity. Whether they really are or not is not for A7 to decide; you can use

WP:AFD to delete it if there is no notability. Regards SoWhy

12:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WP CSD A7 does talk about a "claim" of notability, not a theoretical possibility that one could exist. Otherwise everything could be construed as possibly being notable unless it is a hoax and does not exist at all. Passportguy (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not. Let me quote from it (emphasis added):

As I said above, imho being part of a notable entity is such a credible claim, albeit an implied one. I understand that other admins might have other ways to read this although I think most of those patrolling CSD agree with me that all criteria for speedy deletion should be applied narrowly. Regards SoWhy 13:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

On 24 May, you tagged

It should have been in the nomination at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 24#Redirects to Template:Navbox / Template:Infobox Person but I seem to have forgot adding it to the list. I'll delete it as G6, seems like there is no controversy in deleting such redirects based on aforementioned nomination's consensus. Regards SoWhy 16:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I agree that G6'ing is reasonable. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sir - I submitted a page on Canadian filmmaker Larry Kent which was deleted. I pasted a bio I found online to bookmark the page before I went back into it and drafted an original page. I am working with the legendary Mr. Kent to create this page and I would really appreciate the page to be restored...Larry is very old and needs his work represented on Wiki.

Thank you in advance Chris Alexander —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderEternal (talk • contribs) 01:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Chris, unfortunately you cannot paste texts you found on the Internet to Wikipedia, doing so is a

Wikipedia:Your first article has more information on writing an article for the first time. Regards SoWhy

08:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello SoWhy, could you restore this to my userspace? It wasn't my intention to tag for speedy. In fact, I thought I had substed out everything that would make it appear in cat:csd.. decltype (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that, it should not be needed anymore. decltype (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I can still restore it if you like. Regards SoWhy 18:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, that's ok. I had intended it as a question for the latest RfA candidate, but I made another one. decltype (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Sorry then again (although next time you might want to clarify that on the page somewhere, seeing as it might be easily misread as an attack page). Regards SoWhy 18:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Will do. decltype (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy! Would I add {{db-vandalism}} to a case of vandalism like

You usually add the template to the page in question, not the corresponding page. If the talk page is only vandalism, add it to it. In that case, it would maybe even be a G10, at least the latter version. G8 is correct as well of course, since there is no article for that talk page (kind of an delete-it-all for talk pages without articles, no matter the content). Regards SoWhy 19:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Great, thank you, :-)

talk

06:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As usual, you are more than welcome. Regards SoWhy 08:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm having a discussion with Tanthalas39 on their talk page about the above. I'd value your opinion. Thanks. GedUK  14:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Undelete the Crom (Band) page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.154.41 (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You are a bit of a homo though, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.154.41 (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not know why you think that trying to insult me will help your cause in any way. I will be happy to explain to you why the page was deleted and what requirements are needed to restore it (mainly that there is some sort of credidle claim that the band could be considered important or significant) but I fear I won't just do it because you decided I should do so and tried to insult me (if I considered "homo" an insult, which I don't). If you are willing to talk about the article itself and what can be done about it, I'd be happy to. Regards

Os

08:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi - you declined protection because the user was blocked. They're back on a new IP. Could you consider semi-protecting the page, please? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 16:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

How, when AfDs aren't allowed to last more than an hour and deletion reviews wherein several administrators support undeletion are closed as "keep deleted per status quo" regardless, am I supposed to develop an article? Especially when new reliable sources in the British media keep popping up and Jehochman bans me for developing them in my userspace? TAway (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the close was incorrect but as we are both involved, I do not know if I am correct. The closing administrator is more neutral than I am in this case. So...advice? Wait a few weeks, after the controversy has died down, then, if the subject is still notable, recreate the article with new sources and text. You can also try and raise concerns of the close of the DRV at

WP:AN but I do not think that this will be very successful. Sometimes working on Wikipedia means to accept someone else breaking the rules and getting away with it. Regards SoWhy

11:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi
You might want to give User:Ale jrb/Scripts/csdhelper.js a try since I'm slow, and it looks as if I'm going to have even less time for Wikipedia in the next couple of months.
Amalthea 15:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hi there. Thanks for the tip, I tried it but somehow I am too stupid to get it to work. I'll bother ale jrb about that tho. If it works like the thing I wanted from you, you'll probably don't have to do anything anymore (except maybe integrating it into Twinkle). Good luck with whatever takes your time at the moment. Regards SoWhy 19:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • How did you find it o.O? Either way, SoWay, you can now add your own decline reasons to the script. Instructions are on the script page - you just use an array. Cheers, Ale_Jrb^talk 21:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll try it out immediately. Thanks for your work on the script, great help. Regards SoWhy 05:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I believe it popped up in my watchlist, by some editor adding it to his monobook. And since the tool I had started working on is called SpeedyHelper, that obviously caught my attention. :) Amalthea 12:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Ah, I just remembered: it was in Closedmouth's monobook. Amalthea 13:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh. Awesome :). Ale_Jrb^talk 14:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy. I've been doing a lot of the BLP unCat lately, and run across a bunch of junk. While I'll likely never be a big CSD tagger, after reading through your tutorials, and the CSD stuff - I thought I'd try one on an article that just didn't have much work put into it. Would you look at

addendum also, am I supposed to go notify

 ? 

20:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The tag is correct, there is no credible claim of importance or significance. Nevertheless, I'd decline it in this case because I think the subject might be important or significant per Google News and Google Scholar hits. Yes, you should notify the creator (the tag tells you how to under "Please consider placing the template..."). Regards SoWhy 20:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for such a quick reply. I'll read up on the "Please consider placing the template", and remove the CSD. I didn't do a Google search, so best to remove myself than have the mistake hanging out there. Thanks again. —

 ? 

20:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)