User talk:SouthernNights/Archive 7

This page 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.

I am wondering why you viewed the addition of the quote about the Peace Corps wanting older volunteers as "POV / unsourced". It was souced to a Peace Corps spokeswoman and to the Chicago Tribune, so I assume you see the edit as "POV." But there are other quotes in this section from others, so why is the Peace Corps spokeswoman a "point of view" objection? I do conced that the statistic should read "fewer than 1% in 1961" were over 50, and "as of 2006, 6% of volunteers" are over 50. Can we make a small edit to the contribution and still include the quotation? We think it is quite signficant that more volunteers are older and more experienced than in the previous generation of Peace Corps volunteers. So many people aren't even aware that the Peace Corps has volunteers of all ages. D.B. Hunt and D. Straka

Hi - there is some difficulty going on with the

I have taken the liberty of extending the block on this account to indefinite, as I believe this is a vandal only account (particularly given the recent unblock request). If you feel differently, please go ahead and adjust the block length, I won't be offended. Best, Gwernol 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I agree. thanks,--SouthernNights 18:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I note that Religion is getting vandalized on a fairly regular basis. Would it not be possible to semi-lock it or whatever to prevent this? It seems that 99-and-44/100 percent of anonymous edits are vandalism. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 19:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Best, --SouthernNights 19:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. 2 minute turnaround time. Thanks! --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 20:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Go and block him now, he vandalised again--Retiono Virginian 19:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Also done. Best, --SouthernNights 19:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

why you removing my info about Nowak support page? I think that she like all the people suffering from love obsesssion needs it...

Check the history. That wasn't me. But it was link spam and deserved to be deleted.--SouthernNights 19:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

ur deletion is totally not sound...please restore so people can further expand...is there is something int he article specifically u have a problem with then remove~that line...Benjiwolf 19:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How else can I let people know that there is the support page? —The preceding

please do not blank new valid articles without discussing on the talk pages...im not sure whether this was politically motivated blanking or just why u did that...yet i am citing u for possible vandalism...Benjiwolf 19:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

ok...i see ur reasoning and concern for liable...yet remove what sentences u thought were vulnerable...i mean come on...its the other astronaut thats the one thats charged with wrongdoing that has a huge page already...and its her that will be the one sueing yall...i think adding things like the college the other went to and that shes an engineer is totally sound...in fact im partly trying to create a reasonable page for the sane astronaut in this affair so NASA doesnt sue wikipeedia straight away for lisas page...the fact is colleen is a public figure now...and actually i think she technically took that role on when she took up her work with NASA...these are astronauts...if lisa gets a page on wikipedia...then colleen sure does...and i expect we'll see in the next few days more info to be able to add to colleens page that further shows upstanding qualities besides just her college and her particular jobs at NASA...Benjiwolf 19:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Lisa is a public figure--i.e., a high profile astronaut. Colleen is not. Makes a big difference. Anyway, I've raised the issue here. As I said, if the consensus of admins is to undo my actions that's fine with me. You might want to make your case on that page. Best,--SouthernNights 19:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to delete that annoying hand...or make it very clear that you should not use boilerplate like that with established users (unless they are permablocked). Guettarda 23:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The hand doesn't bother me and, for what it's worth, the editor who used it here didn't know the template is for vandalism cases where a vandal is about to be blocked--unless they obey the hand and stop :-).--SouthernNights 01:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's the problem - people can misuse these too easily, and they pack too much of a punch. I get the sense that the potential for abuse outweighs, the WP:BITE potential, may outweigh the "vandal-frightening" value. Guettarda 02:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that this article had been deleted but yet the talkpage still exists with comments being posted to it. Shouldn't have been deleted too? Thanks, Ronbo76 04:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I think the Colleen Shipman article should not contain a redirect to Lisa Nowak, it's confusing. --Iediteverything 20:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I started using Wikipedia, my primary use was to add Simpson quotes. Now, we can't do that anymore. That was simply my breakthrough, as it were.-

Phil

Where had you seen it was AP? It's tagged by the court's official website. - Denny 21:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence of that court's tag and nothing on the court's website shows the image. Maybe they removed the image. If it was there, it's highly likely the image was from the AP. While its possible the image is from the court I've seen no evidence to support that. Best,--SouthernNights 21:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply on the Lisa article. Thanks! - Denny 22:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I was reading over the Lisa Nowak page just now and noticed a small spelling error in the third sentence of the article: "Novak flew her first mission into space onboard the Space Shuttle during mission STS-121 in July 2006." Unless I'm mistaken, her last name is misspelled. -- 75.66.47.161 01:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC) feyd

I have noticed that you recently passed several articles as Good Articles. However, before you do this, you should mention if it qualifies under the

Thanks for the comment. This is the first time I've worked on GA and I was selecting the articles based on the GA criteria. I also followed the Pass and Fail guidelines. However, the part about "Leave a comment about your reasons for passing the article (with suggestions to improve the article, if you can)"[1] was unclear on where that statement should be left and even if it was required (i.e., if I felt the articles followed the GA criteria do I have to actually state that). That said, I just rejected one article because of POV and reference issues and left a message about why it was rejected on the article's talk page. I'm also about to list the articles I've passed on Wikipedia:Good articles. If I'm doing this wrong, please advice further. Best,--SouthernNights 20:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For example on each article you review you could include the six criteria steps and explain why the article passes according to each individual criteria (an example is shown below). Thanks for transferring the articles you passed over to the GA page, people forget to do that. Make sure that you update the total number at the top, include it in recently listed GAs, and update the article's subject section as well. You can find examples of that if you check the history of the page. Also, if you ever find an article that has some mistakes and you don't want to just fail it, point them out and put the article on hold, giving them a week to fix it.

1. Well written?: Spelling, grammar, prose is all looking good. Point out any mistakes that should be fixed.

2. Factually accurate?: Make sure the article is well-sourced with several references and hopefully mutiple inline citations.

3. Broad in coverage?: Determine if the article covers a variety of aspects of the subject and if it covers it well enough.

4. Neutral point of view?: Make sure the article remains in the NPOV and point out and statements that may be determined POV.

5. Stability?: Determine if the article is not any major edit wars.

6. Images?: State if any other images should be included, article needs fair use rationales, further explanation, etc.

Nehrams2020 20:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear SouthernNights,

Could you expand on your comment about POV issues not being addressed on the Activism at Ohio Wesleyan University? I am working on improving the article's references and I would like to find out what you meant by the vague comment regarding past POV issue? The editor who brought up the past concern mentioned that it is no longer a concern. If could address that issue on the article's talk page so that it will serve as a reference when I revise the article, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thank you for your time! LaSaltarella 21:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

On 15 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mark Kellogg (reporter), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page .

--Yomangani^talk 09:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I like your article about Mark Kellogg. There is a historical marker at the grave of his wife Martha at Oak Grove Cemetery in La Crosse, Wisconsin. The local news media raised the funds to put up the marker. Thanks-RFD 16:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Oak Grove Cemetery website is: [2]. There is information about the historical marker on the grave of Martha Kellogg. Thanks-RFD 15:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well i dont really agree with you. but ok maybe it was wrong to write on the censure thing but it is true it is censure on the swedish wikipedia.but anyway.. the thing when i tryed to delete has already been taken care of and discussed so that you cant use against me. and if i take it vandalism notice in a couple of weeks and put it in my archive its still their... so that not an issue either.it doesnt say anywhere in the rules that i cant take off any discussions that are on my page and put it in my archvive.. so i have some rights , even tough you say i cant but anyway. /matrix17

I understand. As has been pointed out to me, you can remove the vandalism warning if you wish. Just try to follow Wikipedia guidelines on writing articles.--SouthernNights 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

but thanks for the good review words to;) best of luck to you to. /matrix17

Thank you for correcting my "Brunswick Maine" error in Uncle Tom's Cabin, when you had many more serious issues to remedy. I could see a light blue background on my reference in the displayed page, but I could not find what was causing it, and I can't discern it from looking at the Compare Edits. Would you please tell me what I did wrong? Thanks in advance. Stagehand 22:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[relative newcomer]

Holy cow, that guy annoys me. That's the third time he's vandalized my user page in the past two days. Wanna do something about his ip address too? (obviously a school one) 205.202.196.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Regards, and thanks for reverting my user page! Tuxide 21:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. Thanks for your vote, I've received an overwhelming 96% support and successfully took a copy of bucket-and-mop from the main office!

School graduation exam and HKCEE are both pressing in, so I might become inactive for a while. But soon after that, I look forward to working with you! --Deryck C. 03:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I want you to know that I have inducted you into the "Wall of Honor". Tony the Marine 16:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, a AfD's been filed on the Dan Schneider article you created: [3].

For the last few days, an anonymous editor here has been cyberstalking and harassing me. This included e-mailing fabrications about me to everyone at my workplace in an attempt to get me fired. I know who this "anonymous" person is and have filed a report with the police regarding him. As part of this harassment, allegations have been made about me using sockpuppets. This is not true. I am supported in this by the editing logs of myself and these so-called sockpuppets, which show simultaneous edits on several occasions. For obvious reason I have no desire to go into details on all of this, but I have been in touch with members of the arbitration committee and other admins about this. Many thanks to all the editors who have given me support on this issue. --SouthernNights 20:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, glad to be of service.

RGTraynor

20:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that you have passed Youngstown, Ohio as Good Article on February 13, 2007. However, I was wondering if its possible that you check out Columbus, Ohio's article to see if it qualifys as Good Article grade. The current grade is a class B on the project scale, but that grade was posted 1.5 years ago prior to a number of major improvements. Could you provide some justification for it to see where it currently stands.

I nominated

Ohioan

04:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I was also wondering if Columbus, Ohio's article should under go a

I would like for you to get intouch with

Just to let you know... your article has been messed with again. --LymanSchool 14:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

On April 4, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clare Winger Harris, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

All the best with the GA nomination SouthernNights. Thanks for your many contributions! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello SouthernNights! I noticed that you removed an automated review on

Evidently there is a

WP:PR. Best, --SouthernNights

16:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Now I know what happened. Btw, I was inspired by your use of a state seal on userpage. Myself just put a seal of

Talk, Editor review

16:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, my IP address has been blocked, I don't know why, I don't vandalize articles. My adress was blocked by User:Dmcdevit. Please help, I have been trying for hours to help resolve this problem. The blocked address in question is 66.217.38.111 I don't vandalize and I am a fair user, please! Dmcdevit keeps ignoring my questions! I'm near desperate trying to figure this out, I don't know to much of Wikipedia and it's rules, I went to the "how to unblock page" but there's hundreds of pages, please, I need your help and need you to get this Dmcdevit to respond to me! Please review, I don't know how I abused my address, help! Hurricane Andrew 21:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, please disregard this message, I've already found help, thanks anyways. Hurricane Andrew 00:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

SouthernNights, thanks for creating the article

Hey, glad you like it. Thanks for the kind words. Best, --SouthernNights 16:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI -- I'm going to try mediation first to resolve the issue. However, unless you answer my points I raised within a couple of days, I will put the entire post back. And if you delete it after that and with no better reasons than the highly dubious ones you've already posted, I will go straight to arbitration with a complaint about you. I have tolerated enough attacks and nonsense from "CWC" and Andyvphil, and my patience is running very thin.... Callmebc 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a number of policies regarding

Talk:Killian documents) also violates the cornerstone of Wikipedia civility, which is to assume good faith. In addition, my previous concerns about the essay you keep posting here are still valid. I have no axe to grind on this article or talk page except to make sure that the page and these discussions follow Wikipedia policy. If you wish to take me to arbitration over this (as you've threatened to do), feel free to do so. Best, --SouthernNights

01:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We'll see then. Callmebc 04:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Alabama, I noticed this ongoing controversy and have asked for fresh eyes to have a look. [4] Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 06:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please double check this edit. [5] The other editor was blocked for 72 hours. This editor has been uncivil, and has ongoing problems with

WP:AGF. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib

) 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to figure out the sequence of who said what to whom when in regards the the Killian dispute. In your case, it's a little unclear how you became involved -- did someone request your assistance, was the article on your watchlist, or...? Thank you kindly for any helpful info. Also, I think you should leave

User:Andyvphil alone -- he for the most part was the only person at least "discussing" things in between his snipes, unlike some others who merely sniped and attacked not only without discussion, but with apparently no intention whatsoever of discussion. -BC aka Callmebc

12:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, yet again -- I'm still awaiting a response from you: how exactly did you come to get involved in the first place? And for the bonus question, how come nobody has yet fixed the curious state of the "history" of the Talk (aka "Non-Discussion") page? -- CWC evidently made a bit of a mess just after the block was put on me. A still curious mind would like to know. -BC aka Callmebc 04:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is my 3rd and last request. You know what the questions are, and I'm beyond curious at this point. -BC aka Callmebc 04:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said in my last comment to you, I'm not wasting any more time debating the ins and outs of what I said or did. Everything I have to say on this matter has been said on your talk page and other places.--SouthernNights 13:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that as your final "response" then. Thank you kindly. -BC aka Callmebc 16:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at MDS International and expecially its talk page. It seems to be the subject of an edit war in which a rouge Admin is participating. Now personal attacks are being posted on the talk page of the article. Thanks70.156.252.11 11:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to say thanks for the prompt and precise information about Randall Garrett; I'm going to assume for the moment that my reference source, Hubin, has erred (or else that I'm just too dumb to figure out what the heck he was talking about in his abbreviations and circuitous pseudonym listings). Your speed, accuracy and courtesy are very much appreciated, 'bamaboy! Accounting4Taste 22:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Always glad to help out. Best, --SouthernNights 22:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there and welcome to the Alabama Project. It's good to have someone with your experience on board. I am originally from Tuscaloosa and live now near Mobile. Roll Tide! JodyB 00:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Looks like an exciting project and I'll help out in any way I can. I should add, though, that I went to Auburn. Hope you won't hold that against me :-). Best, --SouthernNights 00:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I eat collards and cauliflower sometimes so I guess I can stomach another aubie! :) 01:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I'd be happy to talk to Joe Blundo regarding Wikipedia and Citizendium. I'm not quite sure how to e-mail you but perhaps as an admin you can see my e-mail? Please let me know, thanks.--Analogue Kid 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Kehoe The old one had gotten too big. Mayorcheese 00:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a limmit on how long articles are supposed to be? Mayorcheese 00:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Responses left on your talk page.--SouthernNights 00:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you took out my English-language non-displaying message from the VT massacre clusterfuck/article. I've been having to clean up a lot of British English, and things keep getting reverted from "canceled" to "cancelled," etc. How would you suggest putting in a reminder of WP's dialect conventions? This article is attracting many, many inexperienced editors who 1) apparently aren't aware that grammar and diction change when you cross the Pond, and 2) are really into copy-editing. --Dynaflow 19:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to erase that--I was just trying to fix the references. Unfortunately, so many edits were happening at once that by the time my edit went through it must have overridden yours. I also understand your irritation with the article. People are continually messing up the references in it by deleting parts of the reference code. BEst, --SouthernNights 19:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty. It's back up, and I'll embark on an American English crusade once I get back from lunch. --Dynaflow 19:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, copy editing a document whose beginning will have changed by the time you get to the end of it seems to be a futile task. I'll wait a few days and start editing for style after the edit rate starts to drop off a bit. --Dynaflow 20:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wise move. --SouthernNights 20:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice job. It's good to see some balance during the latest wave of hysteria. --CliffC 23:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. --SouthernNights 00:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. You recently blocked Tjfootballownz (Tjfootballownz (

Thanks for letting me know. I've changed the block to indefinate. Best, --SouthernNights 23:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

On Tom Shows, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page .

Thanks again SouthernNights. Kindly nominated by Carabinieri. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You have been included as a party in a request for arbitration involving the Killian memos dispute. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 23:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that you had given this person a final warning before. Today he vandalized the page for Kenny McCormick, as you can see here. Tweeks Coffee 15:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted information about an integer, with no mention whatsoever of the subject you referred to. If you feel this is inappropriate, please have someone from wp:office contact me. - O^O

If the article is "information about an integer, with no mention whatsoever of the subject you referred to," then the article lacks notability and borders on patent nonsense. And if, as I originally said, the article is the HD-DVD code, it doesn't belong here. In short, this isn't an article that Wikipedia needs.--SouthernNights 17:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you put a temporary block on User:205.222.248.104 a couple of days ago due to vandalism. Users from that IP address (apparently a shared address) have continued their pattern of vandalism after the block expired. I would encourage you to place a 6-month block on anonymous editing from that IP address if possible. Thanks, Dce7 17:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Six months is a little long. I've given them a one month block. Best, --SouthernNights 18:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This was my first full article submission and, I believe, a very valid one. The only words I might have added to help this article along are "This was Gary Mull's first sailboat design." I had also planned on posting a picture of the boat but am waiting on permission from the builder to do so. If Gary Mull is worthy of an article then surely his first design is as well. If you are not a sailboat designer, then I suppose Garry Mull isn't notable either. I'm not an opera singer, but I still think people might be interested in who Pavarotti is. I might have also added to the article that the influence of this design can be seen in most of his later work, but I felt this statement to be too subjective. As a sailboat designer myself, I can tell you from a personal point of view that early design work is of great importance when studying a designer's body of work. There is very little difference here than when one studies the early works of a painter or writer. The article was linked back to Gary Mull (where it is described as his first design) and there was a link to an active one-design class. The link to W.D. Schock was included in the event that one might want to know the exact nature of the cosmetic changes made to this design in 2001. As these changes were made after the death of Gary Mull, I felt they didn't belong in the article proper and didn't feel it was necessary to advertise for the latest model. I guess this isn't the America's Cup, but these things are important to racing sailors. Since the article was unkindly speedily deleted, I have no access to it and cannot make any changes. I couldn't have imagined that the article would have been deleted without notice, and I would have to start from scratch to re-post it. A note in the talkback page would have elicited changes much easier. Can you at least give me back the original text? If you could make some suggestions or repost the article with some change yourself that would meet your standards I would be most appreciative, and I'm sure persons reading the article on Gary Mull would appreciate knowing what a Santana 22 is. Why is the Sea Sprite 34 (I know who Bill Luder is, but there's no article on him), Lady Moura, Shanti Devi, Gypsy Moth IV, or any other yacht notable? Should this article be a stub? Should it be categorized differently? I obviously need more help than "speedy deletion" provides and would be quite thankful for it. —The preceding

See response on your talk page. Best, --SouthernNights 21:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't vandalize userpage "HowardDean". That's MY user page. For some reason my password won't work, so I've created a new user name - Deaniack. -- Deaniack 15:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, I apologize. It appeared to be a case of vandalism. I'll remove the warning. I would strongly suggest you post a note on the HowardDean user page, using the HowardDean user account (if you remember the password), that you have created a new user name. That will make sure there's no more confusion. Best, --SouthernNights 22:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Was your password also "HowardDean"? Prodego ^talk 22:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It is kind of funny because it really isn't my birthday. It was on March 9, but thank you all for your kind words and support.

As you all know, some hacker cracked my password and I have been stripped of my admin powers. I can understand an admin. being blocked, but stripped of his powers without a fair hearing or consensus, I can't. I have stated that I changed my password and would like my powers back, however the chastizing going on in [[6]] has sadden me. It doesn't matter how many articles you have written, contributions you have made or how many years you have dedicated to making this project a credible one. A hacker, it seems has the power of making people consider you an untrustful person and turning some people in the community against you.

I have never abused of my powers and I have used Wikipedia as a medium to educate others. Yes, I have no regrets about having made so many contributions to the Pedia. I exhort all of my friends here to make sure that their passwords are strong ones so that you will not have to go through what I am going through.

I did promise some of my friend a couple of articles and as a good Marine I will keep my promise. To my friends here, Thank you for your friendship. Tony the Marine 23:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My adminship has been restored and let me tell you, we've got to very careful with our passwords. You know, despite the headache that this caused me, it really made me feel good to know how many friends I have in Wikipedia. The support has been incredible. I can't let my friends here down. Tony the Marine 04:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You're a good man to have brought it up. Many of the things that you mentioned were bothering me too. Thanks -- Samir 00:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. I'm just glad that so many people are supporting compromised admins like Tony the Marine. I'd have hated for the project to lose him. --SouthernNights 00:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Amen. It was eating away at me, and I was getting ready to post ... and then you said it better than I could have. Thanks! Antandrus (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. --SouthernNights 00:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do not quite understand what you mean. Could please elaborate? A million thanks!!! --PaxEquilibrium 06:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But for the past one year's time every single edit (not counting

Wikipedia:Automatic edit summaries; there's no edit summary for those) made by has edit summaries. --PaxEquilibrium

19:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by saying "But for the past one year's time every single edit (not counting

Wikipedia:Automatic edit summaries; there's no edit summary for those) made by has edit summaries." According to your user contributions [7], many about a third of your edits lack edit summaries. For example, the comment you just left on my talk page at 19:24, 14 May 2007 lacks a summary, as do many of the edits you've made to other user talk pages. This makes it hard for people like myself who have many pages on their watchlist to know what an edit is about. --SouthernNights

19:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

After pressing the '+' button at the top of this page (or any other talk page) for instance gives no option for an edit summary at all. :) --PaxEquilibrium 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The section header serves as your edit summary when you're creating a new section. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 20:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that, but is there really any sin in using it to reply at the bottom subject that's still open? ;) I sometimes don't even wait for the whole page to upload, but immediately click the plus (not when someone else opened another subject at the bottom, naturally). --PaxEquilibrium 20:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to do that, its your choice. I do question if the time savings on your part is worth the added hassle another editor will have when your talk page comments lack an edit summary.--SouthernNights 23:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Will do so from now onwards (no one told me anything of that nature before).

Cheers!!! --PaxEquilibrium 07:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, SouthernNights ... Our paths recently crossed (amicably, BTW) regarding

I have a question about one of the

Any suggestions? Thnx! —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 08:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a tricky problem. By the nature of book publishing, any book published by a major publisher--such as this one appears to be--is probably notable enough to avoid a speedy delete, while self-published works are usually ads (falling under

WP:CSD#A7 would be problematic b/c A7 doesn't mention books or other non-notable items. Perhaps we should try changing that A7 to something like "Unremarkable people, groups, companies, websites, and other things" or something like that.--SouthernNights

12:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess that one was a Bad Example, and not one I planned to target, anyway ... a better example would have been something like this earlier version of it with the exception that it was by an NN author who did not have a wikilinked article, a common sight on

WP:A

whatsoever that I'm trying to deal with.

I think that my fundamental concern is the mirrored bootstrapping of notability that I keep seeing here ... "This book is notable because its author already has an article," and "This author is notable because their book already has an article," with both articles created by the same editor, BTW ... later, when it finally comes down to a CSD or AfD for one, the other is often overlooked. <Sigh!>

So, is PROD or AfD the only way that they can be deleted, since there doesn't appear to be an appropriate CSD category? I guess I can live with that, but since there are

WP:BK" instead of a CSD. —68.239.79.82

17:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

While CSD may not specify books under

WP:CSD#G11 with my explanation. One reason Warn-band and Warn-web exist is b/c there are so many NN bands and websites which people try to create articles for. Due to the expense of self-publishing a book, that is a lesser problem. So feel free to call these NN book articles for what they are: NN and advertising and send them to speedy delete. If I'm the admin on speedy patrol when that article pops up, I'll have no problem deleting it.--SouthernNights

17:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"What we got here, is ... failure to communicate." (Warden Martin, Cool Hand Luke) ... you see, the DRAFT protocols Warn-band and Warn-web are my own recent creations, so I think you meant to say, "One reason {{db-band}} and {{db-web}} exist ..." :-)

Anywho, points taken ... my concern is for the cases where there is absolutely no attempt at providing

db-reason

}} when nothing else is appropriate."

BTW, I'd appreciate your feedback on these protocols as a way to ameliorate the Serious Bad Karma that can arise from CSDs that might be a little Too Hasty by introducing a "warn first, then tag" paradigm shift ... after

paper trail that includes putting a logical argument for deletion on the article's discussion page as supplemental information for the closing admin, and in case the article is restored after an appeal. —68.239.79.82

19:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would I include that? I only helped format the article and added inline citations (if my memory is correct). I'd suggest you add in the missing info yourself. --SouthernNights 22:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking User:75.23.43.104. Drc79 22:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Why you removed

As I said on the edit summary, I'm removing the name pending verification. I've also removed the other unverified "possibly dead" person. Several people have questioned if we should list people without verification and we probably shouldn't do that. Until reliable info is given that an editor has died, they should instead be listed at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Best, --SouthernNights 01:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Done, listed on missing Wikipedian page.

Talk to me?

01:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I learned about the vandalism to my page from Ali K and I would like to thank you for blocking the vandal and I see that you have requested that oversight delete the vandalism. Again, I’d like to thank you. I noticed that are several posts on my talk page despite the fact that I explicitly ask people not to post on it, but rather use the e-mail this user option because I don’t monitor it anymore. I’d like to request that you protect my talk page, to discourage bot spam and other posts. I believe there is precedent for protecting the talk pages of former Wikipedians. Please feel free to respond to this post using the e-mail this user option. -JCarriker 06:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll also e-mail you, but I see no problem with protecting the page b/c of the recent vandalism. Best, --SouthernNights 13:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've weighed in on the AfD, but since you appear to be a regular editor of the Uncle Tom's Cabin base page, I've got one other comment: Wouldn't you'd prefer

For other uses, see Uncle Tom's Cabin (disambiguation)

over

For film versions, see Uncle Tom's Cabin (film). For the song by Warrant, see Cherry Pie (album)."

as a hatnote on Uncle Tom's Cabin? That was the thought behind creating the dab page. -- JHunterJ 11:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither is appropriate. Please don't get me wrong--I have no problem with disambig pages when they are warranted. However, as it states int he first sentence on Wikipedia:Disambiguation, "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles..." The song is not an article; it's not even that significant a part of the article about Cherry Pie (album). As a result there shouldn't be either a mention of the song at the top of Uncle Tom's Cabin nor a link to a disambig page which truly doesn't qualify as a disambig page. Best, --SouthernNights 13:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a song by Warrant called "Uncle Tom's Cabin". Users seeking it should be facilitated. Later in the

WP:MOSDAB: "This guidance to avoid piping means that a link to a redirect term will sometimes be preferred to a direct link, if the redirect term contains the disambiguation title and the redirect target does not. For example, in Delta (disambiguation), a link to the redirect term Delta Quadrant would be preferred over its target, Galactic quadrants (Star Trek)." -- JHunterJ

13:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with all of that. The problem is that what you're saying deals, yet again, with articles, not with a specific term within a larger article. That said, I really have no desire to fight over this. I'll withdraw my objection to the disambig page and will support keeping it. The reason I'm willing to do this is b/c I've found more pages to add to that disambig page so it is an actual, valid disambig. Check it out in a few minutes. If you can live with it, I'll support keeping it. But please realize I think this disambig page has an extremely shaking reason for existing. Best,--SouthernNights 13:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a

Thanks for restoring the page, and i undertsand your concerns in the way of the article being advertising. Can I ask where you see those concerns? I'm going to work on the page in the netx few days and I'd like to know what parts are the worst, so I cna start there.

Wildthing61476

13:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi SouthernNights,

Sorry that you deemed the article to be an ad. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I tried not to 'advertise' our Company and just list the facts. I obviously did not achieve this and kindly request your assistance in rectifying this.

I thought I followed the wiki-guidelines correctly (content, logo, etc.) and I also referred to existing Wiki-Company pages for examples of content and lay-out; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Data_Systems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabobank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_Hermes

I am not sure what the protocol is here, but I would really appreciate your guidance.

Thanking you in advance, Atradius 10:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

They are anti-Islam and it's out of the question.How can they be anti-Catholic and not anti-Islam.They hate anyone non-Europeans protestant.They openly insult Islam in their forums [8].Their anti-Islam has always been there.

Also look at Christian Identity.You'll find stuff on that.

But regardless it's open they consider any other religion outside protestantism evil.Vmrgrsergr 01:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you. The problem is that the article deals with multiple KKK groups across a century plus. The insults to Islam are from the few scattered KKK groups in recent years and are not historically part of the KKK's hate mongering, as was the anti-Catholic stuff. As a result, Islamic hatred would fall under the general categories of racism and nativism. But as I said, if you can find a valid citation to support your view, we'll add the word in. That said, if you want to add in a mention later in the article about the recent KKK's preaching hate against Islam, go for it. But putting that in the lead give a misleading idea of what the KKK has focused on in the last 100 plus years. Best, --SouthernNights 01:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Then we should also remove anti-semetism since that also falls under racism.--Vmrgrsergr 16:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No. As the article states, the second KKK had its start in the early 1900s with the media attention given to the lynching of Leo Frank, an American Jew. As with anti-Catholic sentiment, the KKK for most of its history has focused its hate toward anti-semetism, in addition to violence against African Americans. While a few fringe groups of the KKK in this day and age focus on Muslims, that is new phenomenon which is incredibly minor compared to the overall history of the KKK. As I said, a mention of this could be made towards the end of the article, probably in the Ku_Klux_Klan#Present section, but mentioning it in the lead will give the wrong impression that the group has focused on Muslims for all of its 140 year history. That is simply not supported by any evidence. Best, --SouthernNights 17:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why it was deleted. This musician is currently prominent in his genre. Cannibaltom 04:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide some citations and evidence to prove that notability, then I will undelete the article. But the subject appears to be extremely not notable, with only self-produced demos of his music.--SouthernNights 14:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

An interview is available here, http://www.arcana-noctis.com/666.html (direct link not possible). He is signed to a label, and does have full length albums released. http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/7440205/a/Remnants+Of+A+Tormenting+Black+Shadow.htm Do you want links to reviews of the album? His home page is hosted on freewebs, so it can't be linked to. www freewebs com/taarma/

Cannibaltom 04:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Just wanted to check you had seen my talk prior to deletion? Talk:Cut_and_Deal The following seem to be blatant advertising and I was trying to add something that I know some people have a genuine interest in (in particular photographers considering opening a niche library).

In fact nearly all the entries in the category 'Stock photography' seem to be short company descriptions with little content of value. Just looking for clarification. Thanks

Please see

Wikipedia:Notability_(companies_and_corporations). If Cut and Deal meets those criteria, then I'll recreate the article. That said. the company does not appear to be notable per Wikipedia company guidelines.--SouthernNights

20:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you move the page Kimberly Jones (Reporter) to Kimberly Jones there are no other Kimberly Jones but there are Kim Jones so it won't harm any other pages. Thanks.

Hello ... I stumbled across the first of these the other day on

• Stitch 'n Bitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Debbie Stoller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bust (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see that talk pages and histories ... the first one has been deleted and restored once already, and digging some more led to the other two.

As you know, I've got a "thang" about

So, should I simply try to forget that I ever saw these articles and just MOVE ON? Thnx! —68.239.79.82 23:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't speedy delete any of those three articles. Instead, bring them up for an AfD. I suspect, though, that they'll be kept. Best, --SouthernNights 00:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy was no longer an option for beau coup reasons; I just mentioned that in the context of the earlier stub of the first one when I encountered on NPP (sorry for the confusion) ... the query was about the prospects of an AfD for any of them based on lack of WP:A, but since I originally asked, I have decided to just Walk Away from this one. :-) —68.239.79.82 06:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not feel compelled to withdraw from the discussion. I personally disagree with your stance (you may check my user page re: RfA), but that's my opinion. If you truly feel that way, I would prefer you remain as noted that way. I know it is nothing personal and I will politely request that people accept your several replies to their questions in the RfA, if you wish to stay opposed. You should not feel that your !vote is a disruption, or feel compelled to otherwise withdraw unless your opinion has changed. Thank you for participating in the discussion, regardless of your choice. Cheers! Vassyana 03:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The Shakespeare Project has begun a collaboration to bring its main article, William Shakespeare, to FA status. If you wish to contribute, please review the to-do list on its talk page. Let's make this article an FA! Wrad 15:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"DW" is an acronym of

) 21:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, illumination. Then I'll change the WP:DW redirect so it goes to Doctor Who. I'm not the one who created all those acronyms in the first place.--SouthernNights 23:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mi Hermano

As you know too often the contributions which Hispanics have made have often been overlooked. This must stop! I believe that you should look at this and express yourself. [9] Tony the Marine 06:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good article candidates

G'day … this isThe IP Formerly Know As 68.239.79.82 (see

Wikipedia:Good article candidates

for these two articles:

• John R. Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 366th Infantry Regiment (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After reading the selection criteria and procedures, I think that both of them qualify for GA (and I am certainly prepared to devote the resources necessary for improvement if they don't), but would rather not get a

registered username in order to initiate the process ... thnx, and I'll await your reply on my new Talk page

. :-)

Happy Editing! —72.75.100.232 05:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Both of those articles are borderline good articles, so I'd like to see them improved before I nominate them. 366th Infantry Regiment (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs inline citations and more info in the combat/WWII section. John R. Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs more info about his personal life. Best,--SouthernNights 16:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Copy that … I'm up to my

cajones in another project at the moment, so I'll ping you when I've had a chance to address the suggested improvements … BTW, my IP changed again yesterday, in case you hadn't noticed. :-) —72.75.70.147

18:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Reedy Boy taking off! Hello SouthernNights, Thankyou for voting in my Administrator . It passed with a suprising 47/0/0, and I really am grateful of all your support, and I hope that I live up to your high expectations! If there is anything I can do to help you out, please, do not hesitate to contact me! Yours, Reedy Boy 16:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

I have a question about the Columbus, Ohio article that I did a nomination on that you had passed back on 23:46, 26 March 2007. I noticed that on the good article template that you diden't add the:

• |action1=GAN
• |action1date=23:46, 26 March 2007 (this was when it was listed according to talk page history)
• |action1result=listed
• |action1oldid=*********

You did a real good job listing it, but you just forgot to add these things in the Good Article template.--OHWiki 21:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I've updated the talk page's template to reflect the all that. Best,--SouthernNights 23:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Good job. Cheers, --OHWiki 23:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

'Sam Green' page protected to prevent re-creation

I want to create a page for Sam Green, the documentary filmmaker, but it seems that you have protected the page from being re-created. Is there any ways to re-create the page with the information I have included below about Sam?

"Sam Green is a San Francisco-based documentary filmmaker. His most recent film, The Weather Underground, was nominated for an Academy Award in 2004, broadcast nationally on PBS, and included in the Whitney Biennial. Green received his master’s degree in journalism from the University of California, Berkeley, where he studied documentary with acclaimed filmmaker Marlon Riggs. His other award-winning documentaries include lot 63, grave c, The Rainbow Man/John 3:16, N-Judah 5:30, and Pie Fight ’69. He currently teaches film and video at the San Francisco Art Institute and the University of San Francisco. www.samgreen.to"

Thanks John

Not a problem. The article was protected b/c someone kept trying to recreate it with a bunch of non-notable Sam Greens. I've now unprotected and created the article for you at Sam Green. Feel free to edit it as you like. Best, --SouthernNights 23:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you know feature

On Shakespeare's religion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

I submitted this for DYK, and it made it. I figure you deserve recognition, since you're the creator, so here you go! Congrats! It's on the main page as I write. Wrad 01:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Influence

Wow! Excellent work on the "Influence on theatre, literature, and language" section! AndyJones 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, I'm not sure it's what

User:Awadewit (who raised the issue of problems with that section in the peer review) is looking for. We'll see when he comments again. Best,--SouthernNights

19:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

About the new article merge, Andy and I have already been discussing this. Look at my post on Talk:Shakespeare's influence. Wrad 02:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Best,--SouthernNights 02:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I thought I'd give you this barnstar for your tireless contributions I have been noticing in numerous articles. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Historical figures portrayed by Shakespeare

A category I created, Category:Historical figures portrayed by Shakespeare is up for deletion. Would you mind having a look at it? The discussion is here. I don't necessarily need support on this, but to be honest I don't even understand the rationale: I think it would be helpful if someone with an interest in the subject would look it over. AndyJones 07:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Osterritter

I added de:Benutzer:Osterritter because of this edit to de:Wikipedia:Vermisste Wikipedianer. Osterritter's account has been indefblocked, his userpage protected. The death of Osterritter is furthermore mentioned at de:Wikipedia:Administratoren/Notizen#Verstorbener Benutzer and at de:Wikipedia:Fragen zur Wikipedia#Verstorbene Wikipedianer. I don't have an off-wiki source for his death, I'm afraid. I also don't know more about his real-life identity. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD AutoReason

I was informed earlier today about a bug in IE6. I've since fixed it per the suggestion and IE6 is working fine again. Just thought I'd let my spamlist know that they need to purge their local cache (Ctrl+F5 on most browsers) to get the latest version of the script. Regards, ^

[omg plz]

 16:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Macbeth commands sympathy?

Someone brought up the fact that this statement is a bit controversial. I tend to agree, although I get the drift of what you're trying to say. Maybe saying instead that Macbeth, Shylock, and other characters are not portrayed as mere monsters, but as flawed humans with their own reasonings, fears, etc. Wrad 00:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's why I include a reference to an author saying MacBeth created sympathy in the audience. I also think that's true. But I'll see if I can't fix the sentence up a bit along the lines you suggest.--SouthernNights 01:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was confident that your source completely backed it up, I just saw it as something that would be pretty controversial to other readers and editors, although I agree with it. Wrad 01:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks better. I'm going to see if I can't find a similar ref for Shylock, as I think the point will carry better with more examples. It is a very good point, by the way. Wrad 01:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and worked Shylock in, because I thought I could do it without expanding the intro much, if at all. Take a look. Wrad 01:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

FAC

Even Raul654 says there should be few if any footnotes in the lead. Think about it, it's a summary, why would you need lots of footnotes?Rlevse 17:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your roman numeral fn links don't work, but the 1/2/etc ones do.Rlevse 17:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

See my talk page, the template link, and the FAC. Rlevse 20:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare

No, it's not a deal breaker. I wouldn't oppose an FAC on one issue, but the authorship question is symptomatic of the article's failure to discriminate on quality of sources, and so I'm likely to oppose. I won't do so lightly, however, and I have put in some reading both before my comments at the FAC and before my comments at the peer review, some of which haven't been addressed. I intend to do more reading before deciding whether to oppose or not; but I won't be supporting. I feel that what we have here is a very good amateur article but one that might attract dismissal from professionals if it became one of our flagship articles.

On the authorship business, I spent hours yesterday trying to find a literary academic who had advanced the theory that Shakespeare didn't write his plays. I found two things: first, that the vast majority of serious books on Shakespeare don't mention the matter, which is the line I think we should take. Of the books that do mention it, they all rubbished the idea: I don't mean that they took the idea seriously and after subtle scrutiny decided that the evidence pointed otherwise—I mean that they laughed it out of court. Since this latter group of writers do address the issue, if only to dismiss it, the fact that the paragraph remains in the article would not be a deal breaker for me in itself. qp10qp 18:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit War

I haven't "started an edit war": you must be thinking of Smatprt, who was the one who reverted the much needed changes, not me. Perhaps you can discuss it with him further in your e-mail communications. If the changes-or something like them--do not survive, I will voice my concerns at the FAC discussion. My impression is that the section should indeed be a "deal-breaker" if it continues to contain unsupported, incorrect, and unattributed assertions. Except that FACs aren't "deals", of course. - Nunh-huh 19:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Having the section as it currently exists certainly wouldn't stop me from supporting FAC status, but a version which claims the idea has growing academic support without a reliable citation for that assertion certainly would. - Nunh-huh 20:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Rest assured on this. There seems to be a consensus to at least keep the sources reliable. Before the little revert exchange, several editors were searching for good sources on the statement in question. If one couldn't be found, it would probably be reverted, anyway. If one was, then i would have no problem with the statement. I think this is just what we need in this article. I don't really have an opinion on authorship, but I do have several about sources. Wrad 20:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As I said at the start of our work on this article, we should only use academic-level sources b/c of the controversial aspects of Shakespeare's life and works. --SouthernNights 20:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User Victoria Eleanor

Hello, thanks for your attention about June Anna Danes' death. I was informed of her death by Jade1984, who is close friends with her. She is still very upset do I didn't think to ask her about a picture, although it occurred to me that it would be nice as well. She died yesterday so am not sure if the obituary has come out yet, but I will try to get one and send the information to you. I am sure there will be one available in a day or two. I would like a bit more info about her as well, as the bio-sketch now seems a bit sparse, but I didn't want to pressure Jade so soon. I will try to get the information as soon as I can. And thank you for your help. Arundhati lejeune 16:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Authorship refs

I just overhauled the refs in the authorship section, and added footnotes. My hope is that this will bridge the gap on this issue. Please have a look. Wrad 18:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I just left a messege supporting your concensus version. Good luck to us all.Smatprt 00:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I don't think I can give you any info at all. An obituary in her name...well she has no family left. You can delete the info given if you like. Please don't ask me anything...I feel sick about it. Waking up everyday to know that the only person you ever knew is no more is horrible enough. Sorry if you think i'm not cooperative, but I can't help it.Jade1984 05:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Agent Zwei and 81 with love

Hi SouthernNights. You recently warned users Agent Zwei (talk · contribs) and 81 with love (talk · contribs) for sockpuppetry in relation to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. Could you explain to me how you've come to view these users as sockpuppets? Were they involved in disruptive editing outside of Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians? Have they been CheckUsered? What did these users do to arouse your suspicion? Aecis^Brievenbus 10:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I was suspicious when I couldn't verify anything about the "death" of this editor, despite having their supposed real name. When I checked the user contributions of the supposedly dead editor, 81 with love (talk · contribs), then checked the brand new account which first mentioned this editor's death (Agent Zwei (talk · contribs)), I discovered that Agent Zwei (talk · contribs)'s account was created just over an hour after 81 with love (talk · contribs)'s last edit. In addition, Agent Zwei (talk · contribs) immediately began editing WNBA article, which 81 with love (talk · contribs) focused on. Per the Duck test, this seemed like a sock puppet. To my knowledge, there were no other disruptive edits (although claiming to have died is pretty dang disruptive). Best,--SouthernNights 11:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If one account was created so quickly after the last edit of the other account, there may be some checkuserable info, which is why I have filed a Request for Checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Agent Zwei. Not that I distrust you, but the possible ramifications of this are so serious that I believe a Checkuser may give us more certainty on this. Suppose the two accounts are unrelated and 81 with love hasn't died, this is probably the most sickening attack possible on Wikipedia. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Aecis^Brievenbus, I'm not sure what you mean by the "possible ramifications of this are so serious"? This is a case where someone has faked their own death, which has happened before. I take every posting on Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians very seriously and always try to track down verifying information. In this case, the evidence easily pointed to a sock puppet. But even if I was wrong, this wouldn't be a "a sickening attack on a fellow Wikipedian" because of WP:AGF. I am making a good faith effort to maintain this page and keep out fake info. I also notice that you're been trying to add info to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians but another editor has been removing the info until verification is provided. I hope you are not attempting to attack me b/c of that. --SouthernNights 10:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to this message at

WP:RIP that I would find a sickening attack, not removing listings with verifiability issues. I have no problems with anything you've done on this issue, don't worry. Aecis^Brievenbus

22:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My total apology for the misunderstanding. Thanks for clearing everything up. Best,--SouthernNights 00:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Good ref

Good ref, by the look of it. Out of curiousity, who's number 4? AndyJones 13:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby.--SouthernNights 13:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy

I know how you feel; this article is very hard going. That's partly because of the pressure of trying to get an article through FA which wasn't ready—but all the work brings it closer, inch by inch. A short break from the article is understandable, but not from the whole of Wikipedia! I hope you don't take my comments about the refs personally; the way I look at it, it's just an objective matter, not a personal one. This process is tough, but the article will become an FA sooner or later, and people like you are needed on board to help it get there. You have chosen one of the trickiest articles on Wikipedia to edit, but that way you learn the most as an editor. My own first FAC was a nightmare, and I had to do it on my own: not only were the objections severe, patronising, and time-consuming, but both mediation process and a name-move were initiated during the process in an attempt to torpedo the nom. I often thought it would never pass, but it got there in the end. Anyway, whatever your decision, I appreciate all your work and your "can do" approach. qp10qp 21:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I won't be leaving Wikipedia or anything like that, but I need to take a break b/c not only do I have several writing projects to finish, but I've been devoting way too much time to editing. I'll still be checking in from time to time and when life's less hectic, I'll be back working on articles. And yes, I knew this FAC would be painful b/c of the subject but I was still surprised by the experience. My previous two FAs were nowhere near as tough, but then they weren't on one of the fifty top articles on Wikipedia. Keep up the great work. Best,--SouthernNights 01:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Victoria

Sorry, but CheckUser revealed that Jade1984 and Victoria Eleanor are the same person. DS 21:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Best,--SouthernNights 10:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Posse

Hey, my brother how are you? According to "Bulldog" you have a posse and I'm a member of it. Damn, I didn't know that! Nobody ever tells me anything anymore (smile). Tony the Marine 07:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Done with Wikipedia

Due to irritations and stress with Wikipedia, I will be away from this dang place for the rest of the summer. I might be back at some point, I might not. But if you need admin help, try someone else. --SouthernNights 14:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go, neighbor. Have a good summer, and I hope we get to see you back here in good spirits. You've done more than your share of good work here, and I can't think of anyone who is more entitled to a break. -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'm back.--SouthernNights 14:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare

I stongly shared the feelings/frustrations expressed by you and Wrad at the "Not promoted" thread. Personally, I'd stopped editing a few days ago, and taken the page and its FAC off my watchlist. I really felt there was nothing more I could add. However, thank you for your hard work and leadership throughout the process. AndyJones 14:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

FA Status

I have seen that you have greatly helped the improvement of the William Shakespeare article, and I have just nominated it for FA Status again. I seek your assistance with this project, so will you kindly help me with it?

Please help.

Sincerely,

_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions}

15:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You came up today

Greetings. I wanted to let you know that your name was used today on the Shakespeare Authorship Question talk page. I think you were missrepresented. I hope your vacation is going well! We certainly miss your leadership.Smatprt 05:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he means that I misrepresented you. This is an attempt to stir up trouble for me because Smatprt and me are fighting on the Shakespeare Authorship page. (Felsommerfeld 16:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

The Life of Times of BenJonson (a Wiki editor) in the Shakespeare Authorship discussion details the evidence for a deceitful sockpuppetry. (Felsommerfeld 23:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

Hi. Sorry you've been dragged into this. It's true, I have an expertise and I make edits about what I know. Felsommerfeld wrote the following about this article: "*I mean why are we even having this discussion? The guy from Stratford wrote it all, period." If he had his way there would be no article on the authorship question at all. Since he cannot kill the article he is trying to edit out anything which challenges his position, including deleting whole sections without input or discussion. Now you know...the rest of the story.Smatprt 01:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Felsommerfeld's accusations of sockpuppetry have gone way too far. He knows, as do the actual long-time editors of this article (of which he is not), that Ben Jonson and I are two very different individuals that happen to see eye to eye on the authorship issue. Feel free to investigate, research or whatever you need to do to confirm this. For starters, BenJonson lives fulltime on the east coast, I on the west. Check our IP's or whatever (I am not that technical to know how you check, but I know you can and immediately clear this up and stop Felsommerfeld from his one-man war.Smatprt 01:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Smatprt is smart enough to use different IP addresses. Please check out the Shakespeare Authorship discussion about user BenJonson and read the evidence in detail. You can form your own opinion. (Felsommerfeld 01:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia:WikiProject Shakespeare Collaboration

The Shakespeare Wikiproject is starting another collaboration to bring Romeo and Juliet to GA status. Our last collaboration on William Shakespeare is still in progress, but in the copyedit stage. If you have strong copyedit skills, you may wish to continue the work on that article. Members with skills in other areas are now moving on. Improving Romeo and Juliet article will set a standard for all other Shakespeare plays, so we look forward to seeing everyone there. Thanks for all your help with the project. Wrad 20:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN

Hi. You're mentioned here. Bishonen | talk 22:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC).

Ethnicity-American actors categories up for deletion

I thought you might be interested in this - a number of Ethnicity-American actors categories have been nominated for deletion. But racial categories were specifically not nominated, and for that I'm personally neutral about the deletion nomination. If you have an opinion, take a look at the nomination:

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_8#Some_American_actors_by_ethnicity

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

KKK and Fascism

Hi! I was just a little confused about your edits to Ku Klux Klan, and have taken up my disputes on the talk page. I was hoping that you could weight in, or explain. Thanks! ._-zro ^t_c 16:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Will

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		I commend your hard work on talk 04:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On Shakespearean performances, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--DarkFalls ^talk 08:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congrats! Your hard work has finally payed off. I myself have only edited for 4 months, but as you say you have been working for years. You faithfully followed the William Shakespeare article and I along with the other users working on the page must thank you. Hope your summer is going well,

42 11:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. And congrats to you and everyone else who worked on the article.--SouthernNights 22:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet

We're about to put this up for GA status and I thought we could use some of your input before we take the plunge. Wrad 01:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, a few of us are wanting to get William Shakespeare on the main page as Today's Featured Article. You have any experience with that sort of thing? Wrad 01:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

CSD AutoReason Updated

Attention spamlist! I've just updated

^{[omg plz]}

 17:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet

The Shakespeare Project's new collaboration is now to bring Hamlet to GA status. Wrad 00:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians

Check out the latest post there. It appears that the editor User:Gaimhreadhan has passed away. An entry will probably be needed. — Moe ε 03:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what I can do.--SouthernNights 12:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This one's for you

Wikimania in Atlanta!

Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about

Atlanta

! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!

P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please answer your mail

I consider it quite uncivil - and especially in respect of an administrator and in respect of such a sensitive subject - that you have not responded in any shape or form to the two e-mails sent you but have taken the time to revert the alert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASouthernNights&diff=155266801&oldid=155243460

I feel so strongly about this that a formal complaint about your lack of response will have to be considered if you do not reply now.

The only Wikipedia e-mail I've received in the last six days was received this morning, and I've already responded to that editor. I saw the "You've got mail" comment on my talk page but when I checked my e-mail there was nothing there. Even my spam filter box lacked any Wikipedia messages. As a result, I deleted the "You've got mail" comment, figuring it was a joke or something. I do not appreciate being threatened; if you wish to file a complaint, go for it. Otherwise, tell me what the issue is that's so important you have to threaten me over it. --SouthernNights 19:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding appropriately to my e-mails.

I believe that this now temporarily puts an end to the matter.

If you concur, please signify your agreement by simply deleting this entire section (now that communication has been established). Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by W. Frank (talk • contribs) 01:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You deleted a page about i386 cpu capabilities -- CPU flags

In this page I collect information around internet.

I think that this is technically important.

I agree in fact that this page, by now, has few information, but I think that it should be expanded not deleted.

Maybe I don't know that the same information are elsewhere in some other page or maybe there are some reason why these information should not be in Wikipedia.

I really think that this information are Know-how, please explain me your point of view that maybe will help me on future collaboration with wikipedia.

By Giovanni

Spazzatur 20:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spazzatur (talk • contribs) 20:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC) 

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a mere collection of information. Unless you can create an encyclopedic article on the subject, it doesn't belong here.--SouthernNights 00:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Leet World

I'm not sure if you got the "hangon" message on The Leet World article I created, it seemed you deleted it right after I hit submit on the talk page. So I'll just tell you here. The Leet world is a machinima web series. It has a large fanbase for a series released over a month ago. In total, 25,500 people have viewed all 3 episodes, and a trailer, on YouTube. Leet World is significant enough to fill a wealthy article on YouTube. It is developed by Smooth Few Films, and The Leet World website can be viewed here. I do not know enough to personally write the Leet World article, but I started it and posted it on their forums to gather attention to the article, as they know way more than me. So I hope you reconsider your decision about this article's creation. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FightingRaven531 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it doesn't matter how many users view the web series, to be included here it must meet Wikipedia:Notability (web). See that link for more info.--SouthernNights 00:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The Leet World (2)

So let me get this straight. It must meet 1 of the 3 criteria, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FightingRaven531 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes--SouthernNights 00:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The Leet World (3)

I'm going to say this fits the first criteria. The Leet World is now a featured series of Machinima.com, alongside the popular web-series Red vs. Blue, and 13 other machinima series. A title held only by these 15 out of the thousands uploaded. FightingRaven531 00:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's a featured series on that site (meaning the staff of machinima.com selected the series for honors or highlighting), then it's possible the article meets the WP criteria. If you recreate the article, I won't redelete it. I do suggest, though, that you reference the info in the article b/c its likely others will challenge its notability.--SouthernNights 02:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

What is AfD? --88.16.180.250 17:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC) I cant report references if was necessary. They aren´t sinonymes

Articles for deletion. Go here for more info:Template:AfD_in_3_steps.--SouthernNights 17:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

But a redirect that is clearly wrong can't have a speedy deletion? Alternative music

Johnny Rotten just because he is a singer too. Really it's better a red link than a wrong link, because it confuses the reader and it avoids that somebody writes correctly the article. --88.16.180.250

17:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The redirect isn't a candidate for speedy delete for the reasons you give. If you want to try to change the redirect or go through an AfD, be my guest. --SouthernNights 17:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, cheers. --88.16.180.250 17:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Fight Within. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Carlossuarez46 17:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.--SouthernNights 17:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

DriveOK Inc

I was never given the opportunity to put the Hang On tag on my article because you completely deleted it within less than an hour after I created it. DriveOK Inc has been featured on the News and in Newspaper Articles. It creates its own technology and software. It is an OEM. You should try to be a little less jaded when reviewing new articles and give people a chance to defend themselves. Everything listed in the article was non biased and completely factual. Nomad1000 20:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The article read as advertising and the subject appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability, specifically Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). As such, it was speedy deleted. But if you can provide referenced info on how the subject meets the notability standards, feel free to recreate the article.--SouthernNights 23:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

SmoothStream Band is not just a music band, it is one and only music band promoting mental health through a public health approach...

Hi my page should not be deleted. It is 'one and only' music band in the world to promote mental health of migrants and refugees through music which is based on SmoothStream model - public health approach, which was presented and published two times in 2004 and 2006 in the International Health Conferences. Even though it is a music band it is so much different from other music bands in the sense that it is a registered Charitable Trust to promote mental health in migrants and refugees through music. It is also a doctoral research finding (PhD research with the ethics approval). Community mental health seems to have become a major health issue around the world with the release of the recent WHO report in which depression is identified to be heading the list of ten leading causes of DALYs (the Disability Adjusted Life Year lost) (Mathers & Loncar, 2005). The report is essentially a powerful driving force behind the upsurge of interest in mental health promotion which is believed to be the greatest tool to tackle this global health problem. SmoothStream Band is leading the world to promote mental health and prevent mental illnesses in this 21st Century. SmoothStream Band is showing real promising results everyday in terms of establishing informal social support networks, which seems to be the most important resource for positive mental health. The category of this article is in mental health. I hope you will consider favourably my request to re-launch for the benefits of the world community to learn experiences from the SmoothStream Band. I have many more to write for this article.

Mathers, C. D., & Loncar, D. (2005). Updated projections of global mortality and burden of disease, 2002-2030: Data sources, methods and results (Evidence and Information for Policy). Geneva: World Health Organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoothstream (talk • contribs) 21:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The band sounds worthwhile and I wish you the best with it. However, there are only 22 Google hits on it. The band simply doesn't meet our

notability criteria. Best,--SouthernNights

00:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

deletion of non-notable color articles

There are at least a hundred non-notable color articles, including

thistle (color), which have no relevant sourced information (the usual content is something like "thistle is the color of a thistle" along with an unsourced color swatch that might as well have been pulled from thin air), are currently stubs, and are never going to be more than stubs. Every once in a while someone mentions on wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color that something should be done, but no one ever takes any action. Those that can be sourced should at best be merged into lists of swatches. The rest should IMO be deleted. I thought if I started tagging several of them with speedy delete tags, someone might either go find some useful sourced information to put at a merged-together article, or else we could build a consensus to delete them. But you seem to think that's not the best process. What do you recommend? Should I make a new "non-notable color" template, and stick it at the top of all of them, and then make a single discussion about canning them all? Is there some other better course of action? Putting each one separately on VfD would be an absurd waste of time/space/effort. --jacobolus (t)

21:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you should bring all the non-notable colors up for one deletion discussion. I've seen that done before. But using speedy delete in this case isn't appropriate. Best,--SouthernNights 23:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You think it's appropriate to put some "non-notable color" template on all of them? --jacobolus (t) 23:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd just start an AfD on one of the color articles then link all the other non-notable articles to that AfD. Just reuse the first AfD template on all the articles and list on the AfD all the other articles that are also under consideration. I'd also suggest limiting the AfD to 5 or 10 color articles; more than that will overwhelm people. --SouthernNights 23:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example of how to list multiple articles in one AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanist Nobel laureates--SouthernNights 23:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

So what do I do with those after the first 10? --jacobolus (t) 00:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for your support in Addhoc 18:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)