User talk:SoWhy/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

I tried very hard to follow the DRV instructions with Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 26 for List of Ships, and fell at pretty much every hurdle. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem at all. We all make mistakes but hey, it's a wiki, nothing is permanent :-) SoWhy 23:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That whole goshdarned thing bewildered me totally! Especially the deletion of the article that moved under whoever deleted it (or something!). Not sure that 26 November is being transcluded properly onto the main DRV page, though (tried in in 2 separate browsers in case of local cache!). But it's a wiki! And MW Software is..... unusual! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That's just a caching by the MW software. It will show up correctly once someone edits the page it transcludes to again. Regards SoWhy 23:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, do you mind if I unprotect this article? Most of the disruption was coming from only one person, and there's already a healthy RFC going on the talkpage; keeping the page locked from editing for any longer isn't going to engender any additional discussion. I've generally found out through experience that keeping articles fully protected is actually more harmful than edit-warring by itself, and that attempting to foster compromise yourself or blocking particularly recalcitrant edit warriors when necessary is generally the better route to go. Let me know if you have any thoughts. east718 // talk // email // 03:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed some other users involved as well, so I thought it might be a larger issue. If you have a better insight into the situation and think full protection is not necessary then please, remove it without hesitation. Regards SoWhy 08:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I'm against full protection for all but the most complex edit wars; see

List of Presidents of the United States, which is nearing three weeks of protection)? Somebody's gonna have to unprotect them sometime! east718 // talk // email

// 20:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I, too, in line with the policy think that protection is the last straw when everything else fails. But I usually prefer to let people ask for unprotection using

WP:RFPP when the dispute has been resolved as I think another admin should review the situation of the request. But I will have a look at your tracking page and see where it can be unprotected. Regards SoWhy

20:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the block thing is working. This IP keeps on showing inappropriate comments and I keep reverting them (via (

) 18:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is. That's why it's only doing so on the talk page, this is the only place it can post anymore now. I will look into it and stop it if needed though. Regards SoWhy 18:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. I thought it wouldn't allow you to edit at all for that period of time. I didn't know that. Thank you!

talk

) 18:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It has to be enabled so the user can use the {{unblock}}-template to request unprotection. It is only disabled when the user abuses it to continue the action that got them blocked, e.g. personal attacks here. I reblocked them with the talk page disabled. Regards SoWhy 19:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. My computer decided to slow down just as I was trying to restore the page. I just wanted to get rid of the number. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. I was kind of confused there for a minute. No harm done^^ SoWhy 19:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you (quite properly) deleted NASCO Properties last month. I am afraid I did not follow the deletion debate at the time. I think an alternative outcome not discussed would be to merge it with North American Students of Cooperation.

Could you restore the article to my userspace (say User:Hroðulf/NASCO Properties please, so that I could explore a merge with the editors of the other article?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, will do. Have fun :-) SoWhy 23:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - that was quick! Sadly it is shorter than the existing section that I intended to merge it into: it seems no-one involved in the deletion debate noticed that section.

I think I will create a redirect in place of the deleted article, as it has a couple of backlinks.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it happens. A redirect might be a good idea, go for it :-) SoWhy 23:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I just added in TfD support to the script since it was easy to add and I needed it. I know I've been slacking a little with this. Perhaps this weekend I will be able to get to the script again and redo the interface per our last discussion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, take your time, we are all volunteers. Great to know it's updated, I will cleanse my cache then. But there is no need to rush, after all, there is no script already so everything you do is a bonus. And a bot to close IfDs of already-deleted images is currently in trial as well, which will take away some need for the script thankfully :-) Regards SoWhy 10:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a new and inexperienced user. I really want to be adopted. Please adopt me. Respond on my talkpage. Carabera (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, I've asked him twice, but he insists on waiting until the new year (he so doesn't need to). Anyways, in the new year, if not before, would you like to co-nom DiverseMentality with me? — Realist² 18:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. Just drop me a line when you think he is willing to try and I will dig myself into his contribs and write a nomination :-) Regards SoWhy 03:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, that sounds great! I will have to keep nagging him! :-0 — Realist² 11:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy, I would like to modify the MySpeed page (deleted on Nov 20, 2008) to reflect corrected information that was misinterpreted by the original nominator for deletion. After careful review of the entire talk page's comments for and against keeping the article, i noted that the initial objection was for "notability". Another contributor cited the NY Times article and this link was removed. Later one of several links to blogs were added in support of the notability of the product. one of these was mis-interpreted as the reference to the NY Times article on the product technology and its benefits to a wide variety of the public. I cited the NY Times article in support of notability because the article cites essentially the identical product that was renamed when it supported Flash / YouTube videos. There is are several pages of references you can find if you review the submitted page and google

"Myspeed youtube" 92,400 entries "speed up flash video myspeed" 16,700 entries "MySpeed Enounce" 2,680 entries

Rather than cite all of the mainstream and independent references on the web, i'd like you re-examine the definition of "notable" in the context of a product that is so widely used. Other products (many for pay!!) are Notable simply because of their popularity and usefulness to a wide audience. I have reviewed the Other Stuff Exists other stuff exists page and noted "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". I would appreciate some guidance as to how to modify the page content if that is the issue. DonHejna (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

First off, I think my close was correct. The consensus was for deletion, so the page was deleted. You make the same arguments as you did in the AfD, but you forget that there is no way to "inherit" notability just because the software implements a notable technology. Rather, the software product itself needs to show notability, see

reliable sources that say why THIS product (with this name) is to be considered notable, the deletion-!votes were correct. Regards SoWhy

03:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

The Barnstar | My RFA | Design by L'Aquatique

		The Mizu onna sango15 Barnstar
		Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. — Hello! 15:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You offered me an adoption and I accepted it. See my userpage for the proof. Carabera (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Good job, I am happy to help you. Feel free to ask me anything you want to know :-) SoWhy 15:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you are just wikilawyering with this one. Geometry guy said he was in the middle of writing a comment when it got closed.

) 20:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not. Adding it after it's closed makes the AfD look as if the closing admin read the comment and then decided to ignore it, at the first glance implying something that is not true. He already talked to the closing admin, who told him that he will not reconsider his close, so adding it to the discussion afterwards would not serve the cause at all. He can make the argument at

WP:DRV where it can be taken into consideration. But it is not a good idea to do any edits that can lead to a wrong impression. When the AfD is closed, adding new arguments does not really serve any cause and thus I undid it. Regards SoWhy

20:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine.

talk

) 20:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I added my comment at 19:47. Stifle did not fully consider and declare he was ignoring the issue until 20:16, and the interim time was apparently spent editing his own wizard pages to support his position. Why do editors have so much of a problem saying "oops, yeah maybe that wasn't the best decision for Wikipedia"? Geometry guy 21:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

But my revert was afterwards. I explained my reasoning above. Your argument may or may not be valid, I do not judge it. I just think you can easily make it at the DRV. Adding it to the AfD after it was closed does not serve any improvement that could be claimed as

WP:IAR (see Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means). Please do not think this as stubbornness; as I explained above, I just wanted to avoid any possibility for confusion. I cannot speak for Stifle's reasons though, but that is why there are things like DRV, to fix problems that the closing admin is not willing to see as such. Regards SoWhy

22:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I defend my initial addition of the comment at 19:47 per

WP:IAR (not per its title, but per its content), but otherwise I agree. I think I should have added, or you should have added a note saying this comment was added after the close. That would have been better than deleting it, but hey, we all have the edit history to refer to, so it isn't a big deal. All the best, Geometry guy

22:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

My round

Have a beer on me. Let the amber nectar flow all day and night. Let it run down the mountains and through the caverns and across the rich lawns to swamp the streets. Let it rain beer. Let the heavens open and shine forth beer. Let it all be beer. Wonderful beer. And let it be as deep as the heart of a lion. This is an acknowledgment of your participation in the RfA of: SilkTork *YES! 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Co-ordinated school vandalism from a range

Hi. You just blocked 89.207.208.2 for 24 hours. This is part of a larger problem: the range 89.207.208.1 to .16 are all registered to YHGfL, the "Yorkshire & Humber Grid for Learning, ...we provide secure and reliable broadband connections to schools", and seem to vandalise together, sending messages to each other. .1 is under a 3-month schoolblock expiring 8 December; I have twice reported this group to AIV suggesting a range block, but each time just the worst offender seems to get blocked - yesterday .5 was blocked 3 months, but today .2, .4, .6, .10 are all back at it again. I suggest a school-block of at least three months, at least on .1 to .11 - there has been nothing so far from .12 to .16. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice spotting. I blocked 1-15 with a range-block targeting 89.207.208.0/28 for a month, which seems like a good comprise between the various blocks already issued. Regards SoWhy 12:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Good. I'll keep an eye on them when next term starts in January. JohnCD (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

hi, SoWhy, 1) Please see my

page. I followed your reply (I tried to do "diff" but couldn't; I'm sorry. And I also posted this to my talk page but couldn't figure out how to just put "talk" on yours, so please read this anyway.) We fixed everything in the Barbara Rosenthal article so it is completely in our own words except what we've quoted exactly and we've cited those things correctly. The body was always our own words - it was only the awards and teaching lists that weren't, and that is what confused us about why u took it down but now we understand - I hope! 2) i have a few questions about the parts where thereis a long quote - that is the part about the mandates, and where we've listed quotations. Are they ok? The quotations do come from the artist's website but we found all the correct citations, and her website doesn't have them, so our quotations list is more scholarly and we'd like to keep it on Wikipedia. Also, we-and many peo9ple- have read her unpublished novel, Wish For Amnesia, and would like to put up quotes from that too-can we, if we cite it? 3) That might take us some time, tho, so could you please unprotect the page as is if you think it is ok as is. And if you unprotect it does that mean that the article will go up directly from my user page or do we have to put it up on the Barbar aRosenthal page too? Semmasemma7 (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Good. Before transferring to

the general Manual of Style. A professional look-and-feel like with other articles on Wikipedia (to pick a random name, Andy Warhol for example) will greatly improve the likelyness that no deletion will be sought based on the state of the article. Lastly, you might want to categorize your article

.

Quotations usually fall under "

What Wikipedia is not", they should be transferred to a page on Wikiquote (i.e. q:Barbara Rosenthal) and linked using the {{Wikiquote}}-template. See q:Help:Contents

for help on using Wikiquote (it's another project).

You have to

article-namespace. I would prefer to do so only after you did the style-fixes I outlined above though. Tell me, once you have read and applied those things or if you are unwilling to do so, tell me that you are and I will do the move. Regards SoWhy

22:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

July 29

Thanks for your reply. I figured the discussion probably would end in a "no consensus", so we'll probably be discussing these again in a few months. So far, I've yet to find anybody who can say why the anniversary trivia is useful or worthwhile. I gather that People are willing to come to the defense of the author for his hard work, but nobody actually wants to answer the "what's this good for" question. That's fair enough. Luckily, it looks like the anniversary articles never went beyond the railroad project made in 2005, and thank heaven for that. I can understand that in 2005, it may have seemed like a worthwhile experiment. I'll have to hand it to Slambo for coming up with the idea and seeing it through, and perhaps there aren't more such articles-- no "July 29 in baseball" or "July 29 in medicine" -- simply because of the drudgery involved. There's an interesting section in WP:NOT that says "In general, 'that is a terrible idea' is always sufficient grounds to avoid doing something, provided there is a good reason that the idea is terrible." While the railroad anniversary project will probably be around for awhile, I think that there are enough good reasons to deter similar projects. I'll see you around. Regards. Mandsford (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for putting right the mistakes in my request for admin, it is much appreciated. Paste ^Talk 14:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I suggest you use the "show preview"-button to avoid such mistakes (or at least some of them). Good Luck! :-) SoWhy 14:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If you were in favour of moving this article to Sheffield incest case (or some variant) with associated redirects, I would support that. A new title would help in rewriting/restructuring the article as you have suggested. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I would think we have to do so following

are bold and do the move. Regards SoWhy

18:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do. Mathsci (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise. However I use simple skin, as I know these scripts work only with monobook and modern skins. I may be wrong, of course? Ruslik (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

ah, okay. No, they are mostly for monobook, correct. But some should work in simple, I just checked. Protection.js is within the toolbox on the left and works on simple just the same. Same applies to the great CloseAFD script, not to Easyblock though as it needs a dropdown from the tab on top. But I suggest using protection.js and closeAFD. I just tried both of them in simple :-) Regards SoWhy 14:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try. Ruslik (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Was it necessary to fully protect Thanksgiving? Most of the recent vandalism was from IPs, and there really hasn't been that much compared to some times in the past. Would you consider changing it to semi-protect? —P^urpleRA^IN 20:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, my mistake. As you can see by the protection template, I actually wanted to semi-protect. I must have misclicked. It is fixed now, thanks for telling me :-) SoWhy 21:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift response! —P^urpleRA^IN 21:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comment on my user page. BTW, I think User:Keepscases is just here to troll RfAs...look at his edit history. And the guy was blocked for sexual harassment last year. Sheesh. --Eastlaw (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his posts are somewhat trollish, but I had to find out that some people are really following suit when he does create

WP:DRAMA. So good luck :-) SoWhy

22:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|Neurologic}}

I wanted to thank you for your encouragement, I have read the deletion policy, and I hope I will be able to make more informed edits and nominations. I really appreciate you guys not leaping on me for my mistakes.

Logic

03:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. After all, we all make mistakes, even admins (*gasp* ;-) Keep it up, you will surely learn from it and that's all that counts. After all, it's a wiki, mistakes are only annoying when they are made intentionally :-D SoWhy 08:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

i hope this is ok now. Please unprotect it and put it up. We used Martha Rosler, Sophie Calle, Henry Miller, Richard Kostelanetz, John Lennon and John Baldessari and other examples even before you said to- we didn't use Andy Warhol because there was a note onthe page saying that there was a problem with the quotes. The ones we did use are much shorter-some of them- than our article. We have to get our article up on W before the semester ends within the next 2 weeks, so if it has to go up shorter, that's better than having it all deleted. We, or other people, can work on it further in the future. So please put up it altogether, or just what section does meet all the rules. You didn't quite answermy question about our 2 quote sections, but if you find a problem, then please just don't post that section. Also, Wikipedia made the article in 2 sections, so I just left it like that but u should note that the citations are on the bottom even tho the quotes are on the top section. Thanks SS7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semmasemma7 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I will look over it, fix up some basic style mistakes and then move it to article space. Regards SoWhy 20:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Have you bought GTA 4? If so, or when you do, you mind telling me what size they are? My computer has 80 GB hard drive space divided into 4 partitions of 17.5 GB. I'm not sure my PC makes the min. requirements anyway but I particularly want to know the dvd sizes. THANKS! Karunyan (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. No, I haven't, I decided against it after I read just how much malware and spyware you have to install to get it to run (securom, Rockstar Social Club, Games for Windows, etc.). But Skywalker answered your question on Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV already, it's 2 DVDs with 7GB each. The total space requirements is 16-18 GB (see Grand Theft Auto IV#Windows version, so I doubt you will be able to run it. If you have only 80GB of hard disk space, your PC is probably a bit older and I just have to point to Amazon.com where you can read dozens of people complaining (amongst other things) that the requirements are much too high. Regards SoWhy 09:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Guess you're right. Think I'll buy an XBOX instead of keeping upgrading my PC just to play games. Thanks anyway. Karunyan (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines, but I think I will wait a few weeks for Rockstar to patch the game, maybe they will fix it up enough so people can actually play it. ;-) SoWhy 13:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. It's pretty impressive, did you design it? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I did, it's just CSS actually, no real skill needed (I got none) - just patience ;-) SoWhy 14:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you're just being modest ;) Well done, anyway. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the unblock request bot is now in trial. You can go opt-in

00:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you semi-protected this article before over a height issue. Currently, there is a slow edit war continuing over the same issue. There's no response to my reasoning on the talk page despite calls to resolve the issue and another editor has agreed with my thoughts. Could this be semi-protected again? The user doesn't seem to be getting bored very quickly... Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* I hate it when IP users edit war over such lame things, but you are correcht. It is likely always the same person, on a Romanian ISP, but the necessary range-block would affect 65025-455175 IPs, which is too much. So I locked it down again, hopefully the IP will grow bored within the next month. Regards SoWhy 15:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I agree the range block would be too much. It frustrates me when people not only refuse to collaborate but refuse to open dialogue. The Romanian part makes sense from their use of "errorate", I presumed they were Italian. Hopefully the problem dies away. Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful consideration at

) 17:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

hi, i was wondering why the Nassim Haramein page was deleted (twice).

Cheers.

k.

Katato (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Because it was decided to be deleted within the

the deletion review. My deletion was just based on a recreation after this decision. Regards SoWhy

18:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Britney Spears related articles

Hi SoWhy, I've been monitoring 3 articles relating to Britney Spears (Womanizer (song), Circus (song) and Circus (album)) almost single handedly, as you can see from my contribution history and the barnstar on my talk page. I really can't keep this up forever, it's draining. I was wondering if you believe any of them warrant Semi protecting again. There is certainly a lot of bad information being added to these high traffic articles. — Realist² 18:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you are correct. I put them all on semi for 2 weeks. Regards SoWhy 19:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanx, just to clarify, is this protected or not, the log seems to say unprotected... Anyway thank you again mate. — Realist² 20:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, see below. Somehow the software went weird on me...weird... SoWhy 20:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you hit the wrong button. I'll bet that you meant to semi-protect Circus (Britney Spears album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for a bit, and instead, you unprotected it when it was already unprotected.—Kww(talk) 20:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. The software continues to surprise me, I never knew you could unprotect something that is already unprotected... ;-) SoWhy 20:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

All good, seriously, it was becoming an uphill struggle to keep those things clean. There seems to be problems with most articles relating to Spears. — Realist² 20:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

thank you SO MUCH for uploading it correctly. i read your reply on my talk pg but am still confused about replies, so please read this. Today I just added a comma that wasn't there, after "painting" and fixed the Ellen Handy article names, which wern't in the right order for titles/publications. All of us in the group - of 5- did a lot of reseaerch. But only three ddid the writing and rewriting. One did a lot of bio, and he dropped out because he got it mostly from interviews and unpublished material hed' researched from the arichives, which was "what W isn't" - lhe'd uploaded it first, and was very upset, but he turned in his bio information as a separate project here instead. The two girls who did most of the writing are very happy - I was decided to be the W liaison after Hector couldn't get his bio information onto the site. So I thank you for all of us. I dont know if we will be on this project next term, but some of us will, and some of us will be gone. Friday we present it for the critique. No other group did W projects. It is a great undertaking by you all there! THANKYOU AGAIN!!! (oops, forgot tildes, and thanks for telling me not to put them in the articles)Semmasemma7 (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome, that's why I'm here. If you decide to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, which I think we all would be happy about, you may want to read

the talk page explanation on how to write on talk pages. I am of course here if you have any questions. Regards SoWhy

14:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, hello! Experiencing difficulty with signature. Eeeeep!

Hiya! Hope you're well, :-) Back from holiday and <groan> back to work! In other news, I'm trying to be useful at

talk

13:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well well well, if that's not my lost adoptee...How are you? (apart from having to work again^^) You find me in a good mood today (despite the fact that I am almost falling asleep in my lecture...kind of boring...). Anyway, your question is quite hard for me to answer, as I have to account on that tool (but I decided to request one now, it might come in handy to have :-). As far as I can see, the SQLBot converts " to &quot; and < / > to &lt; / &gt;, thus rendering any HTML code in the signature useless (wikicode like [ ], [[ ]] '' or ''' should work though). I think that means that your current signature cannot be used completely with the tool, but I won't know that for sure. I think you should ask SQL (talk · contribs) for help, I am sure he will not hurt you for asking ;-) SoWhy 15:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not lost, just temporarily waylaid! Things got a little hectic around here, and I'm happy to be back, :) But you! Imagine editing the wiki during your lectures—Tsk tsk, SoWhy!

I've changed my signature for the automatic welcoming to something simple using only wiki-code. I haven't created an account yet to see if it works, but it should! Thank you for giving me your best shot, and I realise that I asked a question that you couldn't be entirely certain of the answer to. I knew you'd have a pretty good idea though, and I was right, :-) Thank you!

talk

19:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, they were boring, how could I do something else. It was this or falling asleep (literally!)

Well, you know I'm just guessing. You can always ask the guy who wrote the Bot to tell you what's wrong. :-) So, you're welcome for the little guesswork I can provide. You know I'll do anything much for you ;-) SoWhy 21:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's

17:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletes

I apologize for any problems. The Twinkle software apparently didn't work correctly on my computer, as I wasn't given options to change the setting from the default "test page" option. I have since re-installed the software, and it seems to work correctly now. Thank you for using appropriate language and I appreciate the level of respect you used in forming your responses. --digitalmischief (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. I strongly advice you to read my note to you on your talk page as well though, because while I appreciate your work on new page patrol, some mistakes can be avoided if you understand what articles are not speedy deletable (in those cases where you didn't tag G2 but for example A1 or G11). Keep it up :-) SoWhy 10:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings...FYI: A duplicate of

) 12:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I checked but I still think my decision was correct. A7 has a very narrow scope, something many users forget when applying it and sadly some admins do forget it as well: Notability does not have to exist, it just has to be claimed to exist and in this case, it is. Whether that is the case or not is not my decision to make, there is

WP:AFD for that. Regards SoWhy

12:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Morrissey

As the admin who protected the Morrissey article could you please see my request on the talk page. Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --JD554 (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. I hope you can solve the your dispute soon so the page can be unprotected (request unprotection at

WP:RFPP once you did). Regards SoWhy

14:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Macaulay Culkin

It seems I may have jumped the gun requesting semi-protection of

chat

) 17:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If it is, it's good that I protected it. Usually after someone died, there is much disruptive activity to an article, so I think we can just let it run through. Regards SoWhy 17:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thats a good point. Cheers!

chat

) 17:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

the Barbara Rosenthal article

First, thank you for your help with our group effort! Semma Semma has been our liaison, but as Wikipedia is still unhappy and threatening deletion again because we haven't satisfied them as to "notablilty" and enough citations, I did a bit more rewriting to address those issues, and to make it sound plainer and less "promotional", and to add many more citations. We did so much research; I guess you-all want to know where it came from, even the somewhat general statements that hadn't seemed to us worth citing.

But the technicalities of uploading it under the threat of another deletion the day before our critique has made me leery of doing it myself now. Semma said that you uploaded his, so I'm asking if you'd please change the first section and the footnotes of the Barbara Rosenthal article as I have changed them today on my Orignale User Page. This is what happened when I tried:

I followed your form exactly for the footnotes, and tried to follow exactly the ^[1] notes where possible, but I expected them to automatically link, and they didn't. Please link the text to the footnote. When I placed the same text for both "8" references, I'd expected the number to repeat, as it did in your upload, but it didn't for me; therefore I just put "8b" in superscript: this for the 8's, 11's, 13's, and 20's. (I hope you can interpolate my changes into the work you have already done: I was afraid of spoiling it myself.)

Semma told us not to sign our posts, so I won't sign anything I put on the actual page, but I signed this user page. Was that correct?

We disband tomorrow, so I'm just hoping this will stay up and not have so many icons and Wikipedia notes about how bad it is right up at the head of it. When you put it up last time, the only notes were on the Discussion page: that would be great.

I wouldn't mind re-doing sections next semester that Wikipedia said were like a resume. Did they mean the exhibitions? They didn't mean the bibliography, did they? They said the "biography", but Hector's biography had been taken down a month ago???

I plan to "talk back" correctly. Originale (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, there was no motion to delete the article, just tagging. It happens. Unfortunately, notability cannot be "created" - a subject is either notable or it is not, see
  WP:BIO
  .
• As for the references, I think you are best served if you take a look at the
  Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners
  which explains very well how to write citations.
• As for signing posts, please read Wikipedia:Signatures.
• Sorry, the notes indicate problems with the language and style that you probably will not be able to fix. Hopefully some experienced editor will take up the cause and fix them :-)
• I don't know what is meant, you'd have to ask the person who placed the tags, Orangemike (talk · contribs). He is the only one who can tell you why he thinks this problems exist as he was the one who identified them.
• Btw, new posts on talk pages are done at the bottom, not at the top. Use the "new section" link at the top :-) Regards SoWhy 22:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

		Cookies!
		...for your prompt response when speedies need to go! One question: So, why? :-) Cheers. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Talk to me! ←at≈:→ 00:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

the Fugitive Projects article

Hi SoWhy I noticed you deleted the "hangon" i added to an article contesting speedy deletion. I thought that I "may contest the deletion by adding "hangon" to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position". I followed what i believed to be wikipedia procedure. Please tell me what i did wrong, how i can correct myself, or what is the criteria for you deletion of my "hangon". Thank you for you time. Tom arthur (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The {{

speedy deletion-template has been placed, in order to prevent a fast deletion. In this case the speedy deletion tag has been removed by another editor in good standing, Apoc2400 (talk · contribs), so there is no speedy deletion tag to be contested. I removed the tag because it causes the page to be listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

, where it should not appear.

I re-removed it now, leaving a note that I decline any speedy deletion attempts, so it should not be tagged for speedy deletion again and even if, I think no admin would fulfill such a request. Deletion via

articles for deletion is still possible though (but {{hangon}} is not for those cases). Regards SoWhy

08:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Fanks

For this. I'm off to rest though; hold up the fort! :) Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 09:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Btw, not wanting to scold you, but you made a mistake when deleting

WT:CSD#A10. Regards SoWhy

09:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, nice to know that we're discussing the issue. Thanks for pointing that out. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 21:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Not that deletion in particular, so don't worry. It was just used as an example ;-) SoWhy 21:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge TalkContribs, 17:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes, citations, references, and the rest

Assuming you aren't currently falling asleep in any lectures, hmmm? Good! Well, then, I have a question which you may, or may not, be able to answer, and if not, then I hope that you may be able to point me in the right direction!

I have performed in/studied/enjoyed the Shakespeare play Twelfth Night and hope to contribute to the play's article and expand (or create) articles on the play's main characters.

Because there is some pretty serious mis-information in the

Andrew Aguecheek

article, I've decided to start working on that one first. As you can probably imagine, a lot of sources for the article's content will actually come from the text of the play itself, and some comments by literary experts, and ideally, I would like my references to include small, select quotes, where possible. For example, the reference I added yesterday, footnote 1, includes a quote. The line from the play is the best "confirmation" and seems pretty succinct.

I would like to be able to continue that format in this article, and in future literary articles, so I need to know two things. First, is it ok? I haven't seen anything forbidding the use of quotations, but I wonder if perhaps I shouldn't "overdo" it. Maybe it's considered "over-referencing"; is that discouraged? Second, how can I standardise this? If you look in edit mode, you can see that, in order to include the rest of the reference, I have had to add a lot of other information (wasting space, making it hard to read, etc). When I do the next reference from the text, I'd love to be able to use a "short-cut" of some kind, and only change the page numbers and the quote. I have used <refname> before, but that doesn't allow me to change anything about the reference. Do you know, or do you know who would know, or what community would know, how to gain greater flexibility with these citation templates? I had a quick look at other similar articles and didn't see this format in use, but I have trouble accepting that someone hasn't, at some point, wanted to do something very similar.

Thanks in advance for your help, and since it's getting to around that time of year, I hope you're enjoying the cold and the holiday season :-)

talk

18:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I ain't, I skipped the second lecture today in order to spend some time with my g/f, so I'm good ;-)

Generally it's only a copyright-problem imho, which should not be one for Shakespeare quotes. The essay at

WP:ARTS) for guidance, the folks there live and breathe those kind of articles ;-) HTH SoWhy

19:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Blimey, that

talk

19:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could help you. Have a nice evening :-) SoWhy 19:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Arman Tripathi

Hi SoWhy. I would hate to correct you, but Arman Tripathi is a real cricket player on the Nation team in Singapore. Here are my sources to show he is an unique individual :

http://www.cricket.org.sg/Scorecards07/Nov07/29_Nov_SG_SA_U15.html http://www.cricket.org.sg/Downloads/SCA%20Annual%20Report%202007-2008.pdf

As you can see from the sources above, he is 'qualified' to have a wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thamacster317 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately you forgot to include those sources in your article. I did not delete it because he is not

WP:ATHLETE carefully before you do to avoid another deletion for similar reasons. Regards SoWhy

14:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Extentia Information Technology

{{db-g11}} says It does nothing but promote some entity and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. You said not blatant advertising (also read as spam) - in my opinion, just because twinkle uses that term, does not mean that is the only possibility that G-11 refers to. If you had looked at talk page, the editor who created the page admitted creating it for promoting the company to enable job seekers. Anyway, now it has been marked for PROD. I will continue to mark articles that are not necessarily blatant, but promotes the company without any references or notability, by g-11. If you disagree, kindly let me know reasons and how it relates to policy/guidelines. Thanks. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 16:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it that is exactly what G11 refers to. Promotion alone does not mean that G11 applies, that is why "blatant" has been included. This is not Twinkle's usage, this is the

ad}}-template for those articles where the language is not blatantly promotional. Regards SoWhy

17:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

OmniMD EMR

Hello,

i change in page please help me how to make article for omnimd emr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.107.148 (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read

WP:SPAM. Regards SoWhy

17:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

155.198.0.0/16

Hi SoWhy. I notice you've blocked almost the entirety of the world's 6th ranked university as a schoolblock, apparently in relation to a RFPP request concerning 7 acts of vandalism at Lytham St Annes. This is some enormous collateral.[2] I wonder if you'd consider semi-protection instead. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I placed a soft-block which I figured should allow them to register accounts and continue contributing if wished. I found it unfair to protect an article from editing by IPs just to shut out one single vandal who happens to have a certain range at their disposal, so I figured a soft-block would be the less painful for the encyclopedia than locking out all IPs from editing. But, as usual, I am quite new to the "job", so if you think otherwise, feel completely free to reverse my actions. I do not mind :-) Regards SoWhy 07:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I have unblocked it as I am certain it is more unfair, and detrimental to the encyclopaedia, to block an entire A-list university over seven edits. I have watchlisted the article, but feel free to semi-protect it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Institute for Research into Cancer of the Digestive System

Just FYI, your speedy decline made sense, but the tagger just cited the wrong copyvio, it is and was a copyvio of their site just as the last time it was speedied. Just didn't want you to think I was disagreeing with your call. StarM 02:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Seems Google was not nice to me that day, I found only the mirror, so I'm glad you found the copyvio. :-) SoWhy 07:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Voracious Children

Yikes! My Total Bad! Thanks for the decline... the spam CSD was completely unintentional. I always appreciate careful admins. Best regards. --OliverTwisted 07:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. That's why two pair of eyes should look over it when speedy deleting - the patroller/tagger and the admin :-) SoWhy 07:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Your protection of

Natural-born citizen

I have commented at

Talk:Natural-born citizen#Was protection appropriate?, explaining why I think the protection you imposed should be lifted. Some of the problematic edits were by anons, so semi-protection might well be a good alternative to full protection. JamesMLane t c

11:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The edit-warring was between multiple editors, some of them autoconfirmed accounts, others IPs. Semi-protection should not be a way to lock anon editors out of editing so that autoconfirmed editors can "push their version" without their consent. If there is a content dispute, the

protection policy is clear that full protection is the correct way to go. In this case there was little vandalism (although it existed) and mostly content disputes, so semi-protection for vandalism would be incorrect. I suggest you seek consensus about the disputed section and request unprotection afterwards. Regards SoWhy

11:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Your NAC comments

While I can't imagine it was intended that way, your comments on my NAC of the Endgadget AfD came across as condescending. It is my opinion -- and only my opinion -- that my NAC was justifiable and the reversion was inappropriate. I have done many NACs without incident, and to suggest I don't know what I'm doing showed a bit of

talk

) 14:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If so, I do apologize. You of all people should know that I was always one of your supporters and I never understood why you withdrew your RfA. But your comments on that user's talk page seemed like I was working on your behalf, an impression I did not want to left unchallenged (and I do not imply in any way that you wanted this impression to exist or that Uncle G will get it, just that it is possible).

Like most people, I do have my own opinion and in my opinion your close was incorrect as I think that it was more of an "uphill battle" at that point rather than a

BITEy. I would never want to do so. Regards SoWhy

14:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't sweat it -- it would be a dull web site if everyone was in complete agreement with each other. Be well!

talk

) 15:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile

}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

(A3: Article has no meaningful, substantive content)

Hi, My page was deleted for from your wiki . I have my own website & I was trying to put content on Wiki . If its violate your copyright policy or it has no meaning please let me create a fresh content for that. kinldy allow me to create content for my company. I am preparing fresh content for that . Please consider this issue.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irmc (talk • contribs) 06:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw you recreated

WP:SPAM before recreating it. Regards SoWhy

11:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Userpage

Try looking at it in modern skin. It looks horrendous.. Majorly ^talk 17:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. I have no idea why though... I will try to look into it and see how I might be able to fix it. Thanks for the information. Regards SoWhy 17:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Almathea's first article

I don't know if you've been following he coversation there, but I think you will get a kick out of a few of my recent posts in that thread.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't, but I must say, I am quite impressed with your skills. I mean, sure, you make mistakes but German is a pretty hard language to learn if you are not learning it from birth. It's full of crazy rules and stuff, completely illogical most of the time and counter-intuitive the other times. So for that, you are doing great and yes, it amuses me. But in a good way, so that's okay. Kinda like the way I feel that people must think when they read my stuff. :-D SoWhy 00:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Template

Hey SoWhy. Just wanted to ask whether there's a template used to inform a user, whose RfA was closed per

WP:NOTNOW. I ask you as it seems you used such a template here. Regards, — Aitias // discussion

22:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is. I suggest you take a look at User:Enigmaman/SNOW which has a complete guide on how to SNOW :-) SoWhy 22:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) — Aitias // discussion 22:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct

G4 requires a deletion discussion. I thought I saw one in the history, but I made a mistake. Thank you for catching that. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. That's why admins take a second look :-) SoWhy 19:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on Life mel honey

I'm looking into the editor's concerns. I may have been a tad over-aggressive in the deletion. (Did I say that out loud?) I'm probably going to restore it and instead put it to AFD. I don't think it will survive there but who knows? I'm still not sure I was wrong in deleting it but my doubts are enough to give it another chance. Cheers, Pigman☿ 23:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy decline of The West (video game)

I see that you declined a speedy deletion of

talk

) 22:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, I made a mistake, thanks for the message. I deleted it now. Regards SoWhy 23:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and a inclusionist question

I want to thank for semi protecting the Duffy article we needed that. I am sure you could opted to spend the pre Christmas days doing something else besides these Vandalism policing.

Am I an inclusionist?. The description appears to be more about whole article deletions then editing standards. I would say my view is as in the real world when possible put the information out there and let the reader decide. I view the Wikipedia “rules” more as guidelines. I feel many editors forget the common sense clause. While I try and keep good faith I find it being strained by such talk page comments as “tabloid titter tatter, ”tinfoil hat brigade”. I feel I am usually in the minority with these views. The Amy Winehouse talk page might be instructive (See John Lydon, Kid Rock relevant poll topics). The last topic in Archive 3 is also instructive. As the last topic in the Winehouse discussion shows and with some edits in other articles I do not always come out on the side of inclusion. Edkollin (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, no problem. Then:

WP:NOT are guidelines we should all follow - but how we interpret them varies from editor to editor. My viewpoint is that when in doubt, keep it. A deletionist might argue to delete when in doubt. The guidelines are full of phrases like "won a major award", "appeared in notable tournament" etc. pp. But what "major", "notable" etc. means is another thing and each of us defines it differently. I cannot tell you whether you are an inclusionist or not, you may want to read meta:inclusionism and decide for yourself if what it says applies to you. But one thing: Deleting in the sense used there means also deletion of sections, information, etc. - not only whole articles. You might want to take a look at the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists if you do not want to use a label like "inclusionist". ;-) Regards SoWhy

17:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletionist will also argue that

WP:CSD otherwise the admin in question is, IMO, exceeding his/her authority. I've done several 'surveys' on CSD's and one thing is clear, not everybody agrees on the interpretation all of the time.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon

17:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Very good, Balloonman, my thoughts exactly. I think IAR should not be invoked at speedy deletion at all. IAR is for cases when the rules prevent improvement or maintenance. We have G6 for maintenance and improvement cannot be achieved by a deletion that was explicitly not deemed uncontroversial enough to have a CSD created. SoWhy 17:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

SoWhy, my very best wishes for the festive season stay safe and talk to you in 2009.--VS ^talk 11:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Servus

You offered to check my translations ... hope you meant that :) I just did the translations of the song titles on 3 pages:

send/receive

) 19:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Yeah, sure, no problem. They were pretty good, I just did some minor adjustments [3] [4] [5]. If you need more help or stuff translated, just ask. Regards SoWhy 21:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my mistakes, and you used more literal translations; probably a good idea, I'll be more literal next time. What's a "spinner"? Is that British English for a "top" (child's toy, "drehdl" in Yiddish)? - Dan

send/receive

) 21:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I was just unsure whether to use "top" as it might be confusing. Feel free to change it. Regards SoWhy 21:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Check one more?

send/receive

) 23:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. That one was easy, just two things I changed: I would not translated "Cherié" as it's French in an English-sung song. And there was a mistake regarding "altes Haus", which is German slang for chap, mate, friend etc. Regards SoWhy 23:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Damn, "altes Haus" wasn't on Leo. - Dan

send/receive

) 23:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was. Just in the forum posts only, at the bottom of the search window ;-) SoWhy 00:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I never knew that. - Dan

send/receive

) 01:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I just went ahead and tried to put translations on Switzerland in the Eurovision Song Contest 1986. Only three of the songs were in German, but apparently two of the titles were in the Swiss dialect and the songs were sung in that dialect, so I was wondering if you could check to see if that was correct. I'm hoping you know something about the Swiss dialect...I checked with some chatters from Switzerland and that's what they gave me. Mike H. Fierce! 17:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell. I fear my Swiss German is not really good as well, I live in Bavaria. If you need help with Swiss German, you might try to find someone helpful in

WP:CH. But if you need help with other German translations, just ask :-) Regards SoWhy

17:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Betty Logan

With this edit, the user has begun Wiki-stalking me after our debate at the Black Hawk Down page. It'd be nice to see some rules enforced around here. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The user is now soliciting another editor's help in subverting 3RR. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Instead of coming to me, you should really consider

WP:ANI. I will issue a warning to the editor in question, but should stay away from any possibility for such confrontation as well. Regards SoWhy

20:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Black Hawk Down

We would appreciate any assistance you can offer in the Black Hawk Down dispute. Things got a bit heated and I've calmed down now. I will stand by a consensus opinion on something I feel strongly about. If you could spare a few minutes to consider the disputed edit and my reasons on the discussion page this dispute can be resolved amicably. Basically I just want my views given reasonable consideration. I had no intention of violating 3RR, that is why I applied for page protection. I was wrong in trying to get someone to revert the article, but that was a heat of the moment response to what Tool2Die4 wrote on his talk page: "No, but I will tell you I couldn't give two shits about your opinion, and have no idea why you felt the need to chime in" Betty Logan (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE get your facts right. It helps everyone involved. And I've debunked your major claim on the BHD talk page already. Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not think I would be a good counselor on this matter, I issued warnings and declined requests for protection. I will not tolerate any arguing by any of you on my talk page though, calm down, please. I added a request at

WP:3PO on this dispute, let someone uninvolved give his/her opinion and until this happens, I advise both of you to stop editing this article. Regards SoWhy

21:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have stopped editing, only Tool2Die4 that is persisting with the edits. How can this be resolved while one editor is trying to discuss this on the talk page and standing by the rules while the other is being allowed to continue with edits? As for 'arguing' on your talk page I have responded to the comments you left on my talk page, and may I suggest that you don't leave such aggressive comments if you aren't going to give a people a fair hearing and address the points you have made? There is absolutely no need to talk either myself or Tool2Die4 in such a manner. Betty Logan (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As for "arguing on my talk page", I meant between you and Tool2Die4. I left a warning because you canvassed at another user's talk page so that he reverts for you. There is nothing aggressive in that warning, merely an information about tactics that should be avoided at all costs. If another editor continues to edit when you stopped, just ignore it and await third-party opinions. This is a wiki and all changes can be reverted if needed. So just await further input and let consensus develop, then it can be implemented, hopefully without further edit warring. Regards SoWhy 21:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As per your request for a 3rd opinion, I've given my thoughts on the Daily Princetonian on the talk page Pmbma (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Pmbma

Protection at United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009

I don't think there is a need for protection at

United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009

.

• I made edits removing speculative information from the article to create a best-case version of the page.
• I then made it a redirect, which is what I believe it should really be.
• I then explained my edits at the talk page.
• Markles reverted, though I think he generally supports the notion, based on the article's AfD.
• I reverted based on a different understanding of that AfD, and explicitly said so.
• Tony reverted to a version before any of my edits.
• A discussion is occurring at the relevant talk page.

None of this is outside the bounds of normal Wikipedia behaviour. I don't understand why anyone thought protection was warranted based on so little, but continued protection is certainly isn't warranted. There is no suggestion that any more controversial edits are going to happen. I really think the page protection and Tony's warning at my talk were incredible overreactions to the situation. -Rrius (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The AfD was closed with the comment that changes are to be discussed first (Sandstein clearly says that they can be "worked out on the article talk page"). It was clear that multiple people, including yourself, have a disagreement on how the article should look and that you are willing to edit-war over it. You especially turned it into a redirect twice, even after being reverted, which was a clear sign that others disagree with your change. I suggest rather than using {{

dispute resolution and allow uninvolved editors to give input. Regards SoWhy

22:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not edit war, but I now see why it would have appeared that way. I really don't think dispute resolution is necessary. I give you the unambiguous promise that I will not make any edits related to the matters in controversy without gaining consensus first.

Understanding why I did not and do not consider my revert to have been edit warring requires seeing the events from my perspective. Based on his contributions on the AfD and elsewhere, I took Markles's edit as coming from an allied position; he supported the AfD, so I take his edit summary that his sole basis was the AfD at face value. Since I disagreed with his interpretation, I reverted. In other words, if Tony or another supporter of the speculative matter had reverted me, I would have taken it as part of edit, revert, discuss. Since Markles pointed me to the questionable nature of the speculation in the first place, I did not look on his edits that way.

As to the meaning of Sandstein's remark, I disagree with you. I can now see how others might see turning the page to a redirect, especially twice would look like bomb throwing, but I assure you that to someone without the baggage of having gone through the AfD, it did not seem as controversial. So, then, here's where we disagree: The AfD close mentioned the talk page, but it did not say "only after". Being bold and making the edit does not contradict the spirit of Sandstein's closing remark, which is not a binding directive on future action in any event. I felt it perfectly appropriate to build a case on the talk page and by removing the speculation, leaving only the information duplicating the 5th District page, and then making that a redirect based on the duplication. In other words, I was attempting to explain myself through words and demonstration.

I do not edit war and have no intention to do so at the article. I would also note that all of these edits happened before anyone responded to my contribution at the talk page. I mention that because this is not a case of conflicting edits during a period of discussion at the talk page. It was all in brief period before any discussion ensued.

In sum, I can see how you would have perceived that I was capable of, and even was engaging in, edit warring, but I do not do that, and I think my history would bear that out. Again, I will not make controversial edits at the page in question without consensus at the talk page. -Rrius (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not mind boldness, that's what the

WP:BRD-cycle is about. But you were bold after you were reverted, which is not in that spirit but against it. Hence the protection. If you promise, that you will not edit the page until the matter is discussed, I will unprotect it but I will keep an eye on it. I hope you can all reach some sort of consensus and then apply it to the page, not the other way around. On a side note, individual comments on an AfD are not binding. The closing consensus result alone is important and if it was closed as "keep", then redirect or merge are not accepted without any discussion. You should really avoid trying to justify what you perceive as the correct way to handle the article with a result that spells something else as you always have to consider that other people may regard it as going against the result. Regards SoWhy

00:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

As to the last sentence of that response, I thought I was quite clear in saying that I was trying to explain why what I was doing was not with the intent to edit war. I felt that question of intention was vital. I did not try to (and incidentally don't feel the need to) justify anything. That is why I said, "Understanding why I did not and do not consider my revert to have been edit warring requires seeing the events from my perspective." My contribution was by way of explanation, not justification. The aside about the lack of discussion at the talk page was also not an attempt at justification, but sought to put the entirety of the edits in perspective. I do attempt to see the situation from others' perspectives, and I while I may not have been as robust in doing so here, I think others failed to consider mine, as well. There was, in my opinion, a breakdown in AGF. I hope you will understand if I am not especially minded to walk away chastened by that last sentence of your response. I'm sorry I'm taking the remark a little personally, but it combined with "but I will keep an eye on it" after I have bent over backward to explain and assure leaves feeling a bit put upon. If I had a history of edit warring or trolling, I would understand, but I don't, so it sticks in the craw a bit.

To address the other specific points you raise, I still do not believe I acted against the spirit of BRD for the reason I stated. I felt he was being overly cautious in reaching a common goal. Also, I already did promise, twice, not to make controversial edits without consensus, but I do not mean I cannot make edits unrelated to the controversy.

In any event, thank you for listening to me and being willing to respond both in writing and in deed. You admins take a lot crap and don't get a whole lot of appreciation, so I want you to know you have mine. -Rrius (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if you understood me incorrectly. I perfectly understand what you were trying to explain, my remark was as to the contributions that led to protection, specifically edit summaries like AFD specifically left open merges, etc. It was not a consensus "keep", it was a consensus "don't delete". when redirecting the article. Others may have a different opinion on how to treat the result. After all, it was closed as "keep", not "no consensus", so you need to anticipate that others will disagree if you take action that goes against "keep". Point is, you should avoid using your interpretation of an AfD result to radically change an article after being reverted for it and if you already understood this, I need to say nothing further. Problem solved. Have a nice day :-) SoWhy 09:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

		Merry Christmas!
		Mentality 08:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Your User Page

I LOVE your userpage! Such a cool design. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 17:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :-) SoWhy 18:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

When Misfits Collide

i dont get it? i found nothing on the net anywhere to suggest that the thing existed nor have any notability, which i gather from wikipedia's polcies is enough to get it deleted yet its not what can i do to get it so?

talk

) 19:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Please review

articles for deletion but there is no criterion that allows admins to delete non-notable movies. Regards SoWhy

19:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

1. ^ ...