User talk:SoWhy/Archive 20

• Good luck next time! Hobit (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• The timing in relation to NEWT was unfortunate, but time will probably heal most wounds. I wish you better luck if you try again in the future.
  talk
  10:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For reminding me of why I have no intention of ever subjecting myself to the hell which is RfB. Only a true idiot would do that.... right Julian?---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

But if you are not crazy, how can you work on this project? Regards SoWhy 21:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

He isn't, he's retired, remember? :D MLauba (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And don't you damn well forget it!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't dare. MLauba (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

He's semi-retired at most. SoWhy 13:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no! I saw this moments too late! Useight (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't blame me! ...wouldn't you like to be on

WP:200 twice? –Juliancolton | ^Talk

18:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to be on it once. I only managed

WP:100 so far :-( Regards SoWhy

18:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, just run again in six months and assuming you get 100 then as well, add it up and there you have it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A while back, I noticed here that I had 3 deleted contribs, and now I have 19! Wow, where'd those come from? Anyway, since you're an admin, do you have any sort of tools that would allow you to see what those were? Furthermore, can you clarify exactly what a deleted contrib is?
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 08:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Garrett, to save you a wait I hope you don't mind if I answer for SoWhy, :-) Yes, admins can see an editor's deleted contributions. Deleted contributions come mainly from edits made to pages that are subsequently deleted. Editors who do a lot of new page patrolling usually have a high deleted contributions count.

In your case, your deleted contributions mostly come from the edits you made to subpages in your userspace. You made several edits to User:Garrettw87/Projects, for example.

Hope that answers your question, :-)

talk

11:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it does, thanks! I didn't think of my deleted userpages – it made me think that individual edits of mine were removed from the database, or something like that. I know, it doesn't make sense, but that's all I could come up with.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 15:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That's okay, it's pretty much the same reaction I had when I first came across them about a year ago, :) My first thought was, " what have I done wrong?" The reality is rather less exciting^^

talk

15:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"My first thought was, " what have I done wrong?" The reality is rather less exciting^^" – same and same.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 19:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi

This band from Melbourne is notable. http://www.myspace.com/vulgargrad

They play plenty of gigs.

Please undelete their page.

Many thanks, Ash the AudioMonkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.225.102 (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Unfortunately,

notability guideline for musical groups? Regards SoWhy

13:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment in regards to the ANI.

Have a great week!

I am still recovering from our office Christmas party this afternoon. ;-) Too many "liquids" for my own good.

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello SoWhy. You are receiving this notice because you have either supported or posted constructive suggestions during my recent self-nominated RFA, submitted on 18-01-2010. Please do spend a few minutes to read my comments on the nomination, and feel free to respond on the relevant talkpage for any further comments or questions. Thank you for participating. Regards. Rehman(+) 15:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your advice concerning my usurpation request. I'll try it again following the way you suggest.

No problem. If you do it that way, you will almost certainly get the account here without any problems. If you need further help, feel free to ask. Regards SoWhy 21:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Done! Thank you soooo much! you're being soooo nice to me! ¡Olé!

talk

) 22:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I left another note at the request. You can try to merge your other accounts (like the one on Commons which I guess is you as well) to your new unified login. Use this tool to see which accounts where attached to the account and which are not part of your unified login. In order to be logged into all projects, you should try to attach those accounts as well (using Special:MergeAccount on those wikis) and usurp those which were not created by you. Regards SoWhy 22:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again for your kindness, I indeed own the Commons Kintaro account... but my password is different on it... how can I merge it to my other unified-login accounts? The only thing I need is merging my five acccounts in a single one (four accounts from four different wikis plus my Commons account). And that's all since I don't speak more than four languages, so I'll not usurp more accounts than the english one (User:Kintaro). Thank you again! I'll be waiting while you clerks proceed my requests. By the way, how can I change my Commons account password? I think this way I could merge it to my Spanish-French-Catalan accounts... or not?

talk

) 22:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am no expert, since I had no problem with my own SUL account but according to

crat, a small group that I do not belong to, so it might take a bit. Regards SoWhy

22:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion there's no need to rename anything, only to merge both my English Wiki and Commons accounts to my three already merged accounts (es, fr and ca). I'll take a peek at your new links concerning my new requests... I must seem so demanding... and you're being so kind and helpful... I thank you sincerely. Kintaro (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Done! Finished!! All my projects, all my accounts (the Commons account and the four wikis accounts) are now merged in a unified login, with the same password. Thank you, SoWhy, you were so nice to me, I couldn't have obtained it without your help. Good luck, my friend, and don't hesitate to request my help for anything where I could be useful to you. Santé et bonne année! Kintaro (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, SoWhy, I just wanted to ask you about how to merge my autocreated accounts on "Wikispecies" and "Meta-Wiki" (in order to check it I put the link you gave me on my front user page). "See" you soon, and thank you so much for your helpful help. Kintaro (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the software does not allow accounts to be merged, so you have two choices: You can either continue using the autocreated accounts on those wikis and include a link to your previous username there on the respective userpages or you can go to Meta:Changing username (on meta) and Wikispecies:Changing username (on species) and request to usurp the autoconfirmed account with the previous accounts (the details vary but you probably need to provide a confirmation link (as you did here) from your home wiki (es-wiki) which confirms that account XXX on meta/species is you and you want to be renamed in order to have that account in the SUL). If you made only few edits on your previous account, the first option is probably easier. Regards SoWhy 13:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and sorry for answering so late. I guess I didn't express myself properly, what I want is to merge them, since they are still properly created with the right username: "Kintaro" (no need to change their name then). What I'm trying to do is "attach" them to my other accounts. This way we should see merged by user besides them. I hope I was clear, but if I wasn't don't worry, it's not so important. I'll be absent for several days, sorry if I'm too long again answering your next message. Take care! Kintaro (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the SUL tool, there wasn't a user called "Kintaro" on either meta or species when you unified your account and as such, a new account was created automatically on login. It's most likely that your previous accounts on those wikis were not called "Kintaro" but something else. So the question is: Did you have an account there before 14 January 2010? Regards SoWhy 14:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

So the question is: Did you have an account there before 14 January 2010? No, of course not. Is then useless to "attach" them as I deed for my other accounts? Regards. Kintaro (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's simply not required. Those accounts were autocreated using your unified login when you first visit those projects. The SUL will create an account on any sister project you visit from now on that will be automatically attached to your global account. There is nothing to merge. "Merged by user" just means that those accounts existed before 14 January 2010 and were semi-automatically merged/attached when you created the global account. Other than that, "merged by user" and "autocreated" in the SUL tool are the same. Regards SoWhy 21:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you again, and sorry for the so long discussion, I'm ashamed of having originated a so long thread, so I'll try to don't disturb you anymore. I take account of the fact you were the first on suggesting a solution for my problem. Once more: thank you. Kintaro (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm always happy to help. :-) Regards SoWhy 22:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you know when it was added to the watchlist notice? I'd like to make it a week after than. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 21:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

N/m, found it. It was 22:58, January 23, 2010. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 21:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, another day after that would not hurt and 31 January 2010 23:59 UTC is a time/date that is more easier to remember ("end of the month"). Regards SoWhy 21:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Doh, I made the change before I read this. I'm fine with another day though. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. As you indicated to be okay with it, I changed it to 31 Jan now. Regards SoWhy 21:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Mr.Z-man's closeAFD script seems to have stopped working on my system. Is it still working for you? GedUK  20:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)It's working okay for me at the moment - though I've definitely had problems in the past with it stopping working after unexpectedly conflicting with other scripts. May be worth disabling others and seeing if it starts working again for you. ~ mazca ^talk 21:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I will do, just I haven't changed anything else, so I can't work it out. Anyway, i'll give it a try. GedUK  21:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Could also be a cache problem with the browser. Have you tried a cache-skipping reload (CTRL+SHIFT+R in Firefox for example)? Did you activate any gadgets? Regards SoWhy 22:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, tried that. What sort of gadgets? I've tried it on firefox and chrome on this ubuntu system. I'll try it on my mac tomorrow. GedUK  22:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, now it works on Chrome, but not ff. Oh well. GedUK  23:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have restored

I think it's too soon since your RFA in order for me to be able to give you a useful analysis. I think you should not think about it for a while but get on with editing and then ask again in 2-3 months of normal editing. Currently it's most likely that your editing was influenced by "extra-awareness" of the issues mentioned in your RFA and may not reflect on your real experience. Regards SoWhy 19:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SoWhy, I asked you because I respect you as an experienced user who I have had dealings with. I have many edits since my RfA, in fact 25 % of my total edits have been since my RfA. I am fully aware that it is too soon for another RfA I was just looking for some guidance. I don't like the thought of admin coaching but I would appreciate some direction. I understand if you don't reply because we all have limited time to give to wikipedia. Also I'm sorry your RfB did not pass. That was an absolute joke, same with Julian's. Unfortunately both RfA and RfB are a joke. I think people are too frequently getting through because they don't upset anyone rather than for the more valid reason that they are experienced reliable editors who won't abuse the tools. Whilst those experienced editors who won't abuse the tools are damned if they ever rock the boat!

talk

) 10:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy to hear this. And I noticed that you made a lot of edits this month alone. The point is that you did them with your failed RFA in mind, thus analyzing them will probably not yield an objective result. A statistician would probably say that the

WP:10CSD etc.) before. Also, participate in AFDs but again, read about reasons and alternatives for deletion if you haven't. Again, I know this is only a general comment that does not analyze your editing but as I said above, I don't feel that any analysis at this point can lead to a viable result. Maybe in 2-3 months time. Hope it helps anyway. Regards SoWhy

13:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

An alternate account deleted my invitation on your talk page. Some editors disagreed about these deletions.[4] I actually appreciate this deletion because I completely rewrote the template. I hope to hear your opinion on this matter here. Ikip 20:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Sowhy

Can you redirect sowhy to your page, thanks? Ikip 17:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? SoWhy 17:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Because editors like me type user:sowhy first, then have to retype with cap. Thanks for reading this. Ikip 03:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Or you could just click the link that's already there to get to User:SoWhy. The template that exists there is a better explanation for the account than a mere redirect.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 08:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. If I turned it into a redirect, it looked as if the account was either a previous account that has been renamed or an alternate account I use for editing. The doppelganger-template is necessary to make it crystal clear that this account does not edit and will not do so. Sorry if it causes more work when trying to find this page. Regards SoWhy 13:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, a track list on its own doesn't really seem like context to me, but I guess that's why I'm not an admin. Albums and especially soundtracks usually have some kind of information about the film etc. that they are taken from but this one has nothing but a list of song names. -- BigDom 19:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That is true but A1 does not require much context. If you can figure out what the article is about, it fails A1, since then you can easily fix it instead. A1 is meant to remove those pages where another editor (like you and me) stumbling upon the page has no idea what to do with the content on it. In this case, it was clear that a new user attempted to introduce an article about the OST for Valentine's Day (film) but did not know how such an article should look like. I have now added the necessary markup and structure. Regards SoWhy 19:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I did check "what links here" and the weird thing is that it came up saying nothing linked to that page. Otherwise, I'd never have put a speedy deletion request on it. -- DMS (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Although you might want to remember that we have strict speedy reasons, only

redirects are cheap Regards SoWhy

13:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I see you blocked User_talk:Tryfl2655 for vandalism of the Drunvalo Melchizedek article (amongst others). I just wanted to point out that the person who set that account up was responsible for similar vandalism in 2007 using the account User_talk:Terry_Welch. It's a long story but if you are curious you could look at my web page Perfect Science - Perfect Scam?. Ianji (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi! What I did is applied that which is at the article Macedonian over at this. Is there a problem there? --Drivast (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles about certain similar subjects do not have to follow the same standard of naming. Our policy at

WP:PRECISION says that we should always use the least disambiguated article title possible, i.e. only be as specific in the title as needed to distinguish the article from others. The difference here is that Macedonian can have several meanings (name of the language, part of Greece etc.) but there is only one subject that should be called Montenegrins (the others either being titled Montenegro or Montenegrin), so there is no need to have "(ethnic group)" in the title. Regards SoWhy

23:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

My comments were actually aimed at

undo is when not using Twinkle and Huggle. My comment in this particular case was because Madhero88 used a standard Huggle revert message that was simply incorrect. In general, any revert of a good-faith edit should be accompanied by an edit summary explaining the revert. Which technical tool you use for that purpose is irrelevant, i.e. it does not have to be undo. Regards SoWhy

20:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification!--

otherlleft

20:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This section uses German language. It's not meant to exclude other readers of my talk page. If you are really interested, Google Translate can help you understand it. ;-)

Servus, von Herzen ein großes Dankeschön fürs Verdienst bei der Nominierung des Robert Scholl Artikels bei DYK. Hoffentlich schaffen wir es bis auf die Main Page! Wenn du Interesse an noch einem Projekt hast, habe ich versucht Christian Wilberg auszubauen. Hauptproblem dabei sind meine Quellen, und teilweise mein Englisch. Ich wohne zu lange in Deutschland um noch vernünftiges Englisch zu können... Ein kritisches Auge auf den Beitrag wäre geschätzt! Danke für die Mitarbeit und beste Wiki-Grüße. Jared Preston (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Kein Problem. Nachdem du nix weiter gemacht hattest, hab ich mir gedacht, ich baus mal aus, wenn ich eh paar Minuten Zeit hab. Ist ja schon bewilligt auf

T:TDYK

, sollte innerhalb von einer Woche dort landen. Hab dich zu den Credits hinzugefügt übrigens :-)

Was Christian Wilberg angeht, so kann ichs mir mal anschauen. Ich fürchte aber das mein English auch nicht perfekt ist. ;-) Gruß SoWhy 21:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Joa, bis Samstag hatte ich ihn auch vergessen! Das war Anfang Dezember – hoffentlich hattest du schöne Weihnachten! Und schon isses Februar... Hast du Semesterferien? Jared Preston (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Passiert halt, kann man ja auch nix machen^^ Semesterferien, was ist das? Ich studier Jura, ich hab sowas nicht. Meine Veranstaltungen halten sich nicht an solche Konventionen, ohne meine Freundin, wüsste ich nichtmal, wann die sind xD

Was Christian Wilberg angeht, ich hab mal ein wenig umformuliert [5] Hoffe nicht zu schlimm. Blöd halt wegen Sources, findet man online wohl kaum welche, da müsste man wirklich in ne Bib gehen oder so ;-) Gruß SoWhy 21:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi I've got a question about the deletion of the article Future by design, I can't seem to find any elaborate reason for the deletion of this article only this:

12:07, 1 April 2009 SoWhy (talk | contribs) deleted "

with regards and eagerly awaiting your answer, XM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.71.170 (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that was almost a year ago... Well, as far as I can see, it's fairly easy: The creator of the article copied the text 1:1 from the website I mentioned in my deletion summary (it was exactly the same text). Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, so all text additions need to be released under the

Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 license and the website in question did not do so but retained copyright explicitly. Since it violates the author's rights, I cannot restore the page for you to review it but I'm sure any other admin would be happy to confirm that this was the case with this article. Regards SoWhy

13:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Is anybody going to rename username for me? I did everything what I was asked to do. Here I placed the request to usurpate unused

Thanks for doing so. Please be patient, a

crat will be along soon to take care of it. Unfortunately, since our community does not want to entrust this position to many users, we only have a handful of active crats to handle such requests and thus it might take up to a week. But don't worry, since you did everything needed, it should be done sooner or later. You can edit as "Tomreves" in the meantime here. The rename will reassign your edits under this name to "Snooker" once performed. Regards SoWhy

09:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Materialscientist (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping me !! And I like everything I read on your 'About Me' page. If it's ok, maybe I will come back here if I need your help again. Thanks !! CoderCat (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Feel free to ask me at any time if you have more questions. Remember also to check the

FAQ if you have questions, many things have already been asked and answered and you will not have to wait for me to reply then. Regards SoWhy

20:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you be willing to evaluate me to see if I am ready to run? Thanks.

I'm kind of busy these days but I will try to. It might take a few days before I can do it though. If any talk page stalking admin reads this, I'd appreciate you helping me ;-) Regards SoWhy 21:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's okay, I'll go ask Xeno for now. I 'm sure that whatever it is, it's more important than what I'm asking for. If any talk page stalkers read this, feel free to evaluate me.

talk

) 03:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I made a request for partial usurpation at the English wikipedia, because I did not have an account already at the English Wikipedia, but I have already unified my global account. The instructions on that SUL page say that in this case "...you do not need to create one. You may place your request without logging in. (However, if you are concerned about your privacy, you may create an account like "<Your username> (SUL)"; it is not required, though.)" I followed the instructions an created an account "Antilope (SUL)", and made the request using it. However, now it seems that you think I didn't follow the instructions, and you have fixed and changed the request to a different category. So, did I make my request incorrectly after all? Do you think the request can be fulfilled? Antilope (SUL) (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the only change I made was to include the account you created. Usually, you can make the request as an IP editor and don't have to create an account here. With my change, your edits as "Antilope (SUL)", like here, will be re-attributed to "Antilope" after the rename is done. Don't worry, apart from that there should not be a problem although it might take a few days to be handled. Regards SoWhy 13:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that you revert your speedy deletion and out-of-process closure of the AFD on this article. The speedy was not correct. It is not a copyright violation. Any non-subjective complete list in obvious order is going to end up with the same details. You could try to speedy delete the List of U.S. presidents because Britannica had the same names in the same order with the same dates but I think we know how that would end. The AFD was based on the article having no sources - but one was quickly found (which the original poster should have tried before listing the AFD in my opinion). The AFD should be allowed to finish based on the strength of the sources. Rmhermen (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The deletion was not done because the facts where the same. It was done because the text was almost exactly the same. You are correct, lists of rulers, like many other, will always be similar. Yet, if they are exactly the same in many parts, then it's still a violation of copyright and thus falls under

WP:DRV is the way to go but since a speedy deletion based on G12 does not forbid you to recreate it, I really wouldn't see the point in doing so. Regards SoWhy

00:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I tagged the Kuba list.) G12-taggings for a few similar lists have been declined, see discussions here and here. It would be good if this could be discussed at a central place, and if the result of the discussion could be documented in the relevant policies. List of printed lines in the "Origin of Species" would be a complete list in obvious order but certainly not allowed. To present research in list form cannot be leading to non-applicability of copyright law. --Pgallert (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Technically, the List of printed lines in the "Origin of Species" would be allowed under copyright as the original work is long out of copyright protection. It would be disallowed for other reasons, though (because WIkipedia doesn't publish complete works, something better suited to Wikisource). As for the Kuba list, if the information in the list is simply statistical, a regurgitation of facts, it can not be protected under copyright. Only if the list contains some sort of original work eligible for copyright would there be an issue, but simply listing the facts would not violate any copyright. If the list was copied from some other place, it would be required to be sourced, though, in order to avoid issues of plagiarism. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there :)

I just wanted to let you know that I've resubmitted some changes to the C&C 4 page and updated it a bit to hopefully alleviate any concerns.

I feel that with the rollout of these new DRM schemes it is important to include such information in wikipedia pages.

However I will admit that perhaps the intro is not the best place for this information. If you're still unhappy with the recent changes I'd be happy to add a new section specifically for the DRM controversy.

Cheers :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuchinni one (talk • contribs) 14:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia welcomes all kind of contributions. However, they need to be focused on the topic itself. While I am sympathetic to such concerns - I myself have refused to buy many games because of DRM - your edits are not about the DRM that was included with C&C4. That Ubisoft has included a similar DRM in their games which has lead to criticism is relevant to

Silent Hunter V but since it's not the same company that made C&C4 and since none of your sources talk about C&C4, it has no place in that article. I recommend you remove them again. Regards SoWhy

14:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I understand where you're coming from and appreciate the input. I've added a link from PCWorld that directly speaks to EA's C&C 4 DRM. This should hopefully meet the wikipedia standards :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuchinni one (talk • contribs) 23:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like to draw your attention to a case of pre-emptive indefinite semi-protection that I find unjustified.

The protecting admin has been

As you may remember, pre-emptive semi-protections were recently rejected (scroll down) due to an evident lack of consensus. Not only that, but this justification falls even short of that proposal, since it's not clear to me how unreferenced "speculation in tabloid press and elsewhere" is a "high-profile event that has a history of drawing vandalism".

I would appreciate your views on the matter on the protecting admin's talk page. Thank you. 114.148.236.155 (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that pre-emptive protection is incorrect and not allowed by consensus but I will not be canvassed to complain to another admin about it. If you wish a review of any admin's actions,

WP:AN is the place to request it. Regards SoWhy

18:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I was not aware that

WP:CANVASSing

was frowned upon. Thank you for informing me.

I have followed your suggestion and opened a discussion at

WP:AN#Pre-emptive indefinite semi-protection of John Laws. 123.225.192.66 (talk

) 21:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You recently participated in a discussion

I came across a recent IP edit on the page of Narayanpet which I just can't work out. It was under a new title called 'Reason for backwardness', which for a start is rather odd. Anyway the content seems to be copied but is poorly written, and in different perspectives. I left a message on the editors talk page but he is yet to reply. What do you suggest? Thanks, DotComCairney 13:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a

WP:OR. Regards SoWhy

20:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I appreciate it. Unfortunately, it seems that my desire to be asleep at Midnight, in order to be able to wake at 6:00 to go to work, has interfered with my chances to participate in that offer :-/ Regards SoWhy 07:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Good morning! I'm here bright and early on a Sunday to pick your brains concerning a rather trivial matter. You see how I have a div container with quotes in on my talk page? Well, all is fine and dandy except that some of the quotes are too big for the box. Do you know how to make the box grow? I tried a few things and peeked around on the interweb, but none of that seemed to work. I suppose an added difficulty is that I only want the box to grow if it needs to go beyond the size it is now; if the quote is only one line, for example, I don't want it to shrink accordingly. Here's the template page:

Of course, it's cool if it can't be done, I'll just remove the long quotes! Which reminds me, in my searching around on how to do this, I saw that the quotes should be numbered, which I've faithfully done

You must be busy; your contributions have s l o w e d d o w n.  :( Hope things are okay. I agree about Bordo, by the way, but you have to admit that English is pretty funky like that, too. Besides, my plan is for Strasbourg, and that's very nearly German!

Sneaky hint - change 'height' to 'min-height'. :) Ale_Jrb^talk 10:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Perfect!! Thank you! All that time and it was something so *simple*. :D

talk

11:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern btw, yeah, I'm currently a bit busy IRL but I would have been more than happy to help you - it's just that I am usually still in bed at 10:35 on a Sunday ; but I see my faithful talk page stalker already handled it perfectly, so thanks Alex :-) Regards SoWhy 11:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sneaky amendment – if you skip numbers, it might still roll that number, but won't display anything then as long as you have no #default case defined. But it won't really break. And the last couple of quotes can't currently be displayed at all since you only draw 103 random numbers. Amalthea 16:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks! I'd forgotten about that 103. I won't bother to attempt a default case, as I've realised that I wouldn't need to renumber: I can just move a quote from the bottom to the new empty position higher up the queue. D'oh Julie! At least I sussed that eventually. Thank you, all three of you, :)

talk

17:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You might still want to define a default case anyway, that way you can add and remove quotes without having the move them around every time. :-) Regards SoWhy 17:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh, "suss out" ... never heard that before. I need to talk to more Brits. :) Thanks, Amalthea 17:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Brits are teh awesome. Ale_Jrb^talk 17:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you guys enjoyed that, . The rest of the peculiarly British vocabulary isn't fit for polite conversation, really, it mostly consists of euphemisms for . . . stuff, ;)

talk

21:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I always loved the way Brits speak (hence I love Doctor Who, Torchwood, Coupling, etc.) but that's of course another good reason to do so Regards SoWhy 22:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, you're quite right,

talk

22:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, SoWhy. Would you take a look at Music Women and see if it's a hoax? (I'm asking you since this is a German topic, and I do not know if these are reliable sources.) Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There might be some reliable sources in there but none of them talk about any musical, they usually use "Musikfrau" as "musical woman" and I cannot find any hits for a musical or its alleged writer in any Google search (News, Books, Scholar), so I would agree that it's most likely a hoax. I PRODded it as such. Regards SoWhy 10:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this article and prodding it. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia must be kept accurate at all times, I posted a reliable source regarding The Eleventh Hout airing on ITV1 therefore my decision to edit that to the article displaying that info still stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.133.67 (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You will notice that Digital Spy has fixed their news item by now (after I contacted them). Even usually reliable sources can sometimes report incorrect information and if we have a number of sources conflicting with a single, usually reliable source, Wikipedia can and should not replace those sources without good reason, especially not if there is no indication whatsoever that the BBC decided to air their own productions on ITV1. Regards SoWhy 19:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you delete the articles listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 4? I don't understand why CAT:CSD doesn't appear on those pages even though they are tagged with {{db-empty}}. Do you know why? Cunard (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably because {{db-empty}} is not a redirect like other db-xxx templates but a special template that calls either db-a3 or db-c1 depending on namespace but seems to fail to pass the category along. Unfortunately, I lack the template coding skills to fix it myself. I left xeno (talk · contribs) a message who created the template that way and will take care of those articles listed above. Regards SoWhy 08:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this. I have a hunch that this has something to do with xeno's edits on 9 March 2010 but don't know enough about templates and documentation to recognize if his edits removed CAT:CSD from the template. BTW, nice save of Murder at the Cannes Film Festival. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is certainly the reason, since Xeno turned it from a redirect to a template that calls another template based on namespace. Let's hope he can fix it :-) Oh, and thanks :-) Regards SoWhy 08:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

SoWhy, would you do a favor for me? My talk page is getting long, and it needs to be archived. Move User talk:Cunard to User talk:Cunard/Archive 5. Then add indefinite semi-protection and indefinite full move protection to User talk:Cunard/Archive 5. Restore indefinite full move protection to User talk:Cunard. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. All done :-) Regards SoWhy 08:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving the page. As I said User talk:Cunard/Archive 5#Supplication, "I like having the admins act as my servants. Ordering them around and making them clean up the mess I create is much more satisfying than doing the work myself." ;) Cunard (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So that's the reason you always declined running for adminship. Dammit and I helped you with that. I should have declined to force you to run to do it yourself ;-) Regards SoWhy 09:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Multirow begin has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance with editing

I'll try to take a look but I fear that I might be a bit busy the next two days preparing for my vacation. Is there anything specific I can help with? Regards SoWhy 08:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a can of worms for sure, but I suspect changing that section to make it clear it doesn't grant any special out-of-process summary deletion authority is going to meet with heavy resistance, since there's a few editors that strongly believe it should/does. Gigs (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering... But since there is a discussion as to why an exception to standard British nomenclature exists in the article, is there a reason you just added to the slow moving edit war instead of chiming in and trying to hash it out on the talk page?

- J Greb (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If you review my edit, it was only a revert of a IP edit, not a change to the previous state of the article and that was done while reverting a mistake they introduced. I had not noticed that there was any discussion on that nomenclature, so I did not edit with any intention on taking any side in any edit war. Regards SoWhy 19:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You are, of course, welcome to contribute to the ongoing discussion on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Article about Judyta Papp (her biography) was sourced from her website: judytapapp_dot_com so there were a problem with copyright infringement. I want to finilize creation of her biography, because Judyta is a famous polish photographer, her photos are in polish wikipedia on articles: Marek_Safjan, Andrzej_Wajda, Gustaw_Holoublek, Władysław_Bartoszewski. I have all information about Judyta Papp, because she sent me that personally. Please help me to finish that article, i have that one rewrited from her CV. (Kjarocka (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC))