User talk:Colonel Warden/Archive 5

Systemic corruption

Colonel, if one wanted to make a list of countries that suffer notably from systemic corruption (not that one should, mind you!), this search would probably allow you to include every country in the world, and the UN as well. That's pretty sad. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• There is indeed a lot of it about. I have added similar searches to the article's talk page. Warden (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ziegelburg

Given that we are supposed to be working together to build wikipedia, informing me there is a problem with an article is different to your belligerent AFD as if its against me. If articles have problems I am more than happy to look into them and if I agree will take the appropriate course of action. Please consider this in the future as unnecessary AFDs waste an awful lot of time. If sources cannot be found for an article to even verify its existence then they should obviously be deleted, I believed the castle was created from a missing list♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• What do you mean by a "missing list"? Are there more members requiring attention? Warden (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

List of castles in Austria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you. It was amusing to find that the original Schloss Tyrol, after which the province was named, was not included. I have added it, along with a source.

Most of the entries seem to be blue links but how many of those have been constructed from the list, like Ziegelburg was? We should investigate further as, lacking good sources, the list does not seem reliable. Warden (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The amount of people actively working on Austrian related articles is apparently zero. Its sad that we are missing out so badly on German speaking contributors to such parts.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I speak German, I'll take a look. As an aside, Llandovery Castle could use some attention, seems like that would be right up you and Warden's alley. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Britannia Coco-nut Dancers‎

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nhat Nam

Nhat_Nam

You changed article about "traditional Vietnamese martial art" to "region in the north of Vietnam, near China" but you forgot about removing interwiki to enwiki in all linked wikipedias Bulwersator (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The topic's name is unchanged and so the interwiki links can remain. If multiple topics share this name then we may expect dab pages to be used. What does Ad: mean as a prefix? Warden (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"The topic's name is unchanged and so the interwiki links can remain" - it is completely untrue. Disambigs are used when multiple articles are present on wikipedia about this topis (at least it is method used on plwiki) Bulwersator (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

@ad - I will fix this problem in my script, thanks Bulwersator (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Nhat Namis a Vietnamese name and so will be rendered similarly in other wikis which use the latin alphabet. My work here indicates that there is at least one valid topic which we might have under this title. It may be that there are multiple topics, in which case a dba page would be used to disambiguate them. In all cases, interwiki links will be appropriate and so should remain. Warden (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Buran_Origin_of_Death

Yes I know that my grammar is poor, this huge discussion was completely unexpected. But can you point the most outrageous error in my statements? Bulwersator (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As an example, "can you point the most outrageous error" would be better as "can you point out the most outrageous error". See phrasal verb for an explanation of the general concept. Learning all such idioms isn't easy but so it goes. Warden (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Colonel Warden/Buran Origin of Death to Origin of death

Colonel Warden;
Please do not move this out of your user space again. By moving it directly back into main space after restoration, you've abused a bit of trust. When you finish doing whatever you'd like to do, we'll take the page directly to AfD and have a consensus-gatherin' exercise.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• I did not move it "directly back". I put some significant effort into widening the scope of the topic, copy-editing and adding sources and significant content. I moved it back into mainspace after the quality of the article been significantly improved, because this is where articles are supposed to be worked on. I have continued to work upon the article there.

Your proposal to return the article to AFD is improper because that process is for articles which are to be deleted, not articles which are thought to be satisfactory. DRV is a possibility but I had thought to spare you this as, if we go there, the correctness of your close will be challenged.

I shall do some more work on the article today as I was thinking of taking the article to DYK. That process has a 5 day deadline and I am keen that this opportunity not be lost due to procrastination. The DYK process requires an independent review of the article and its quality. Will that be acceptable as a staging-post?

Warden (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I presumed that you'd be doing the accepted process of rewriting then taking it to deletion review. Instead you made one edit and moved it back into mainspace. This was an abuse of the courtesy I extended to you, and not terribly respectful to the others who participated in the deletion discussion.

I'm not at all fussed about deletion review, it's hardly a punitive process. Take that route if you feel like it, but I think you'll at most get a collective *shrug* as you've already been provided with the material. I'm actually being generous by saying that this will be taken straight to AfD, in that this skips the step of deletion review, which could run for days and days...

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• That single edit represented the work of an hour or more and contained numerous changes. In the course of preparing that edit - checking links, sources, images &c. - I was alarmed when it seemed that I might have lost my working copy, as sometimes happens when one has too many browser tabs open. I was then most concerned to save the work and get back into the mainstream asap, so that it would be safe. I generally dislike working in userspace because many features don't work properly there - incoming links, categories, templates &c.

Anyway, I shall continue to flesh out the article and plan to place it back into mainspace when it seems ready for DYK. I would hope to do this sooner rather than later as it seems best to act while the matter is fresh but I am mindful of the motto festina lente. I shall notify you when this is done and you may then take it again to AFD, if you wish.

Warden (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• The Gutenberg project has some of the guy's books available. [1]

He does seem rather racist, as was common around that time. [2]

“ Lecture II.—The Savage Conception of Death

The subject of the lectures the belief in immortality and the worship of the dead among certain of the lower races, p. 31; question of the nature and origin of death, 31 sq.; universal interest of the question, 32 sq.; the belief in immortality general among mankind, 33; belief of many savages that death is not natural and that they would never die if their lives were not cut prematurely short by sorcery,

”

A lot of open source text to go through to find information about different groups. Too long to fit everything on one page, so perhaps separate pages for related groups. He calls them "savages" a lot. But even National Geographic had racism in it back in the 1890's, I having their hundred and whatever year collecting, and seeing them saying things such as "the Africans are deficient in their thinking ability" and how "Asia and Africa have long been populated by the inferior races." Doesn't invalidate his work though. Dream Focus 00:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As article's creator, I have to ask, wouldn't a rename be in order?

Would Origin of death stories not be better if simply renamed? The four classifications system for death myths or death myth classifications? I asked on the anthropologist wikiproject if people still used this classification method. It might have an official name even. As long as it has a similar title to the other article, people who apparently haven't read both of them through, will get confused and argue they are the same. Dream Focus 16:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• The first name chosen for the article was Origin of death which seems simple and similar to titles like Origin of birds. Frazer had more than four classifications - the four listed were just the ones with names. His book then goes on to list numerous similar stories which are more miscellaneous, not having as strong a similarity as the two messengers &c. For more on such classification, see Aarne–Thompson classification system, which has 2500 different archetypes. Warden (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Your rescue tagging of List of fictional cats and other felines

You recently added a rescue tag to List of fictional cats and other felines. The fact that you added the rescue tag is not problematic. The fact that you deleted a cleanup tag while you added the rescue tag is problematic. You might recall a lengthy RFC/U which took place on this very behavior: removing cleanup tags without addressing the problem to which they refer. Unless I missed it in a previous edit, you did not add references or footnotes to the article, yet you removed the tag. You may have noticed that the first 9 sections of this article (some of which are extremely long, and comprise well more than half of the article) are completely unreferenced. Can you explain why you did this, and why further discussions should not be started to topic ban you from modifying or deleting cleanup tags on any article? —SW— ^spout 16:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

A very brief look through your last 50 edits reveals another example. Cleanup tags don't always require talk page discussion, especially when their purpose is obvious (have you ever seen the lead of an article with a large, extremely detailed bulleted list in it?). And again, you did nothing to clean up the article before removing the cleanup tag. Will a deeper look reveal that your editing patterns have regressed back into serial disruption? —SW— ^comment 16:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• That tag said "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (Consider using more specific clean up instructions.) Please improve this article if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions." This wording seemed quite vague and uncertain as to what the problem might be, and without specific details, did not seem actionable. As I wrote much of the article, I am quite familiar with its details and was not aware of any particular cleanup actions which were needed. The talk page for that article just contains another copy of the same tag, which seems enough in this case. Warden (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit that the JW Cameron case is less severe than the List of cats case, however given your history, you'd think you would want to play it on the safe side. And, of course, you've been told dozens of times that cleanup tags don't go on talk pages. You seem to have an incredible ability to selectively forget things like that. —SW— ^gossip 18:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The rescue tag performs the similar function of inviting editors to improve the article. It is redundant to have two tags repeating themself and the rescue tag does the job better during the AFD period. When that period is over, the need for remaining tags can be reviewed in the light of the discussion. Warden (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This is obviously not the way that cleanup tags are normally treated, and I know you are aware of this. Cleanup tags are not removed in place of a rescue tag, ever. They do not perform similar functions to the point that one can replace the other, especially given the fact that the rescue tag is always temporarily applied and removed after a week (do you really think the closing admin would restore the {{more footnotes}} tag at the end of the AfD, or that a discussion would start regarding restoration of the tag?). You've been here more than long enough and have received untold quantities of warning about this exact type of behavior. I'm not going to argue with you about it, because experience has shown such efforts to be entirely unfruitful. I'd like to see other impartial user's opinions here, and depending on the reaction, will recommend starting an ArbCom case or other such measures. —SW— ^gab 17:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• The previous tag invited editors to add inline citations, which is exactly the sort of work which ARS editors customarily perform in such cases. See, for example, List of bespectacled baseball players - another article currently at AFD, which you have just followed me to. I added inline citations of entries there to establish the article more firmly and expect this similar process to take place in the case of the cats. This is normal rescue work and the rescue tag is better for this purpose because it contains search links which assist in the finding of appropriate sources to be cited. Warden (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not you think the rescue tag is "better" is irrelevant, there is no consensus for your preference (and you've had dozens of editors tell you this already in the aforementioned RFC/U, so claiming ignorance at this point isn't going to fly). The point is that you removed the footnote tag without addressing the problem. What happens if no one comes to the article to "rescue" it, and the rescue tag is removed after the AfD is over. Were you planning on revisiting the page to restore the footnote tag? I highly doubt it. The tag would have been removed permanently without anyone having addressed the problem of referencing in the article, and this was clearly your intent. The rescue tag is not a substitute for a specific cleanup tag, and you've been here long enough to know that. Either you are purposely trying to marginalize cleanup tags again, or you are acting out of gross incompetence for how cleanup tags work. In either case, you shouldn't be touching cleanup tags anymore (in my opinion). —SW— ^talk 18:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• We should note that SnottyWong recently removed a cleanup tag on an article himself. His position seems to be that such action is ok when he does it but not when I do it - see WP:POT. Warden (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Firstly, I don't have a long history of trying to quietly marginalize cleanup tags to the point that I was blocked and had an extensive RFC/U on the topic. Secondly, my removal of the rescue tag (which is not really a "cleanup tag" in the same sense of the word as {{more footnotes}} is, even though it is a maintenance tag) is currently being discussed at length and there is quite a bit of support from the community on the removal. So, I think the two situations are quite different. If you receive the same level of support on your removal of the footnote cleanup tag, I'll gladly back off. —SW— ^express 18:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Snotty Wong is now canvassing hostile admins. Given his history of personal antagonism, his actions seem contrary to WP:HARASS. Warden (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to lodge a complaint if you think I'm harassing you or canvassing "hostile admins", and see if it sticks. I've simply sent a message to the same 3 admins who were involved in the previous iteration of similar behavior by you, for which you were blocked. I could send a message to all of the hundreds of editors who were involved in the previous RFC/U if you prefer. —SW— ^speak 18:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Colonel, I don't think any of us want to go down that route again - would it be so difficult for you to leave maintenance tags in place when you add the rescue tag, and when you remove one that you believe is no longer valid to leave a descriptive edit summary? Then we can all go back to productive things. Thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• It is certainly better to edit constructively than to bicker in this way. As a gesture of good faith, I have added two good sources and three inline citations to the article in question. I had already mentioned these sources in the AFD but the expected rush of cat-lovers has not yet appeared and so it seems good to get them well established in the article itself. Warden (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to continue to misunderstand. Three sources barely makes a dent in an article that large. The first roughly 2/3 of the article doesn't have a single citation. You think three inline cites is enough to correct that problem? A gesture of good faith would have been to restore the cleanup tag. —SW— ^confer 18:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• The list doesn't really need inline citations for many or most of the entries, such as the Cheshire Cat. Note that that it is our policy that facts should be verifiable, not that we actually have to verify them all with inline citations. No, the top priority for the article IMO is a good lead image. I have found a good colourful one now and it already looks much more cheerful... Warden (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Really, per Black Kite, you shouldn't be the one doing removal of questionable cleanup tags. If you want to remove a tag, please make sure that you've so thoroughly addressed the issue and documented your addressing the issue that anyone who complains about your removal will BOOMERANG themselves. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Here's a few more from the past few months: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Clearly, this is not just an isolated incident. CW has learned nothing from the RFC/U. —SW— ^yak 05:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bit of an overstatement. The widest point of agreement at the RfC was that the Colonel ought to avoid removing tags in a way that could be seen as stealthy. In all your examples the edit summary clearly says "– tag". FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That looks incorrect to me, the section Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel_Warden#Outside_view_by_Bali_ultimate had the largest number of endorsements, and it's thrust was "This narrow issue is part of a much larger, long-standing pattern." - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I said "widest" not "most numerically supported". The suggestion that the Colonel's tag removals should be clearly indicated in edit summaries was agreed with by a wide cross section of the community - including several constructive editors like DGG, WSC, MQS - not just the usual deletionist battle grounders. BTW youv've incorrectly linked to a main space article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank for letting me know about the link. Apologies for my mistaking your intent in "widest," it was fairly ambiguous. So you're saying that you don't think that that section of the request for comment is representative? And further, that those who endorsed that section aren't "constructive editors," am I understanding that correctly?
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Snotty mentioned several hundred editors taking part , so I wouldnt say a group of 34 or who endorse one extreme view are representative of the RfC and much less of the community as a whole. I dont mean to say all who endorsed the view are unconstructive, a few of them I recognise as generally good editors. But the view itself was extreme and provocative IMO, and I dont think youre helping by referring to it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean "representative" in that sense, but in the "unbiased sample" sense. Sorry, didn't mean to be unhelpful, was just a misunderstanding of your "widest." Nothing to see here, moving along... - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I should have took more care to make my meaning clear. Hope you have a good weekend! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• The {{more footnotes}} tag is for articles where there are references that lack inline citations. When the Colonel removed the tag there was only one reference in the reference section which was refered to by over two dozen inline citations! So he was well within his rights to remove it. ( Ideally the section header needed changing as the "Notes" section was really a "Notes and citations" section – will take care of this in a min.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC) PS - do agree with Black Kite though, probably best to remove tags with a seperate edit as a way to possibly avoid these time wasting diversions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not going to get into arguing minutiae. The point is that cleanup tags are being removed without addressing the problems they point out, when those problems clearly exist. There doesn't seem to be wide support for escalating this, so I'll drop it and instead give a clear, unambiguous warning which cannot possibly be neither misunderstood nor overlooked in future proceedings: Colonel Warden, please do not remove or otherwise modify cleanup templates unless you have fully corrected the problem indicated by that template. This includes (but is not limited to) the following requests:

• Please do not replace cleanup tags with the {{Rescue}} template.
• Please do not remove entire {{Multiple issues}} tags unless you have addressed all of the issues listed.
• Please do not move cleanup tags to the talk page of an article.
• Please do not move cleanup tags to the bottom of an article (unless that is their normal position, e.g. {{Uncategorized}})
• Please do not remove cleanup tags just because the issue isn't being actively discussed on the talk page, particularly if the problem to which the tag refers is obviously still affecting the article.
• Please do not remove cleanup tags that have only been partially addressed (e.g. suppose there's a very long article which only has one reference, and it has a {{Refimprove}} tag. Don't remove the tag if you only add one or two references to the article).

Given your history, if you are in doubt as to whether it is appropriate to remove a cleanup tag, it's best to not remove it. Instead, ask a trusted colleague first or start a discussion on the talk page of the article. If you have any questions or if you think that any of the above requests are unreasonable, I'm more than willing to discuss it with you right here. I will be occasionally monitoring your contributions, and if I see any more disruptive editing like this, I will most likely escalate the issue to either ANI or ArbCom. I recognize that I am not in charge of you and I'm not an admin, and I assure you that I'm not trying to threaten you or be the WikiPolice. But, I will not stand idly by and watch someone unilaterally remove helpful templates (which another editor took the time to insert) and undo much of the work of new page patrollers, simply for ideological reasons. —SW— ^gab 20:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Pot boiler

Please do not edit war, especially 1) to institute a change (see WP:BRD), which 2) is under discussion on the talk page even as we speak and 3) is currently against the consensus in that discussion. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Your position is not supported by the facts, as I have explained on the relevant talk page. Warden (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please direct me to the policy that says your interpretation of the facts dictates what changes are made to policy pages. You know as well as I do that consensus is needed for such changes. Make your case, and if you convince enough people then great, but if not you can't insist on your version. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• The relevant policy is WP:NOTLAW which explains that our guidelines and policies follow actual practise rather than determining it. It states, "When instruction creep is found to have occurred, it should be removed." and such action seems appropriate in this case. Warden (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Is found to have occurred," does not mean "has been deemed to have occurred by grand master Colonel Warden despite the disagreement of a majority of other community members discussing the matter with him." You still need a consensus to make policy changes.Griswaldo (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• See also the policy WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. My understanding is that the disputed text is novel and so should be removed as it lacks consensus and factual support. Warden (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Signpost Interview

Brought to you by Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 19:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A Palestinian rabbi for you!

Thanks for your support at the Afd on Palestinian rabbis. Chesdovi (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Freeman Dyson

Hi Warden, You added Freeman Dyson to the list of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. There's no particular reason you would know, but his inclusion/exclusion has been discussed at great length in the past, presumably with the result that he wasn't included. That's no reason that you can't revisit the topic but I think you would first need to understand the discussions that have happened before. I wasn't party to those discussions and don't currently know the reasoning, I only know that they occurred. Consequently I've reverted the edit for the time being.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• If you don't know the reasoning then your action seems improper. I shall respond at the article. Warden (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on that list; hope it stands. Yopienso (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a mop reserved in your name

I have observed some remarkable contributions from this account. I am curious, why are you not an administrator. Pardon that you have struck me as the kind of editor who could be a good one, and that you seem qualified by a cursory review. You exemplify the essence of an Administrator without tools! I hope you will consider serving in the fuller capacity.

My76Strat (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind words. I am not an administrator because I have not been through the RfA process. Your comments seem related to the attempts to reform this but my understanding is that it is essentially unchanged. See an article of my creation: festina lente which indicates that it is not good to rush. I have been active in Wikipedia for 5 years but find that I am still learning and mellowing. I have yet to have make a serious attempt at the FA process either. This seems to be Wikipedia's real problem — not enough editors who are willing and able to work at that level of quality. You get what you pay for ... Warden (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Thank you for that reply. I did enjoy reading the article you linked. It is insightful and indicative of the path you are on. I find that continuously learning is a much more attractive quality than someone who believes they already know it all. There is one proposal at WP:ALTRFA which relates to RfA reform that is gaining momentum, and your comments would be welcome there as well. In any regard, you are an obvious asset to Wikipedia and I personally thank you for the time you have vested in making this encyclopedia better. And for the haste that you have slowly made. My76Strat (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For writing a proper article at German collective guilt, and thus hopefully saving the page from deletion ! S Larctia (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you — you're most welcome. Warden (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hammersmith ghosts

Nice work, Colonel--congratulations, and thanks for a good save. Nice image you added. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for withdrawing. A good picture always helps and we should be able to get it up to DYK level now. Warden (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Hammersmith Ghost

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hammersmith Ghost - quote issue

Sorry, I was using a small screen and assumed that the lack of formatting when I switched the quote template was due to that. It turns out that it was due to the left-hand image placement. I am not a great fan of the quote box style in articles but I see that you moved the image also, and it is that which has fixed the problem. - Sitush (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The appearance seems to depend both on the browser and the window size and I've been fiddling with the image placement to try to balance them. I don't like the block quote template as it doesn't seem to do anything and I prefer quotes of this sort to stand out typographically, in some way. The quote in this case seems to have a Dickensian sound to it, which provides a sense of the period. I'm hoping that the readership will like it but critics abound, alas. Anyway, thanks for your input. Warden (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No offense to you, Colonel, believe me! It's just that the article isn't even rated at all - there's no indication why this article qualifies for DYK vs so many others. That was my main objection. The FA article... now that's a problem. Cheers :> Doc talk 11:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• The DYK qualification was that the article was new. As I understand it, it has been held back for display today on account of it being Halloween. I hadn't put it forward for any kind of review as it still needed some work but the occasion of its moment in the sun has provided good incentive to give it more attention. Perhaps it should be nominated for the GA process to see what more might need to be done. As for the FA, we may agree on that as I think that topic is quite distasteful and I don't even want to read it for that reason. Warden (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• My objection to the FA is actually somewhat the opposite of the DYK: I saw some pretty serious canvassing and "thank you" messages from the promoter of that FA. The Hammersmith Ghost article is good, and probably should be listed at GA (it's certainly "B" class, I believe). Doc talk 11:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you. The stats for the Hammersmith Ghost have come through now and it did quite well, getting 24,300 hits - my best yet. Warden (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E question

Hi Colonel Warden, I saw your post on the AfD for Kweku Adoboli and I was thinking the same thing about a BLP I wanted to do for this guy: [10]. So far, I've asked two admins about it and they don't think it will survive WP:BLP1E. What do you think? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Seriously, there is no way this can survive in mainspace in this state. Its a classic BLP1E and there are severe WP:UNDUE and WP:HARM issues with the article. Is there any evidence of enduring notability outside this one incident and do we have sources to allow us to properly document the total breadth of this man's life and works? Clearly not as you would have added more sources and written a bit more. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Spartaz, what in the article constitutes severe undue/harm? Please let me know so I can remove it. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• The topic is already documented in detail at Padilla v. Kentucky. I doubt that there's any need for another article about the same issue. Warden (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've been adding to the article on the case. I'll just add it to the case article. Thanks, Warden. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

forthcoming job

And a big one. I remain outraged by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews . Checking the deleted article, I do not regard it as biased beyond what could be fixed by expanding most of the sections. Shall I email? It might help avoid the usual criticism by redoing from scratch & using the prior one only as one source of material. Not that any draft of yours would need rewriting, and not that I'm a better writer, but it might help if I shared responsibility. One of the things I most dislike at Wikipedia is what is used to be called political correctness. This inverse bigotry in the RW comes mostly from people who share much of my political background, which makes me particularly eager to dissociate myself from it. My response to those who think the topic too much contaminated by anti-semites to write about, is that subjects susceptible to antisemitism should be preempted by those who wish to oppose it. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• It's still called political correctness, isn't it? I agree that the article should not have been deleted but so it goes. The topic is a big one and I doubt that I would have time to do it justice. But I shall put the title on my watchlist and await developments. Warden (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron

I added this to the Article Rescue Squadron discussion page, and thank you for your appropriate, relevant and intelligent comments there:

":*Comment - The user above, Warden, makes a significantly valid point in the purpose of rescue tags compared to the manner in which articles are often bluntly referred to AfD. The "article being considered for deletion" tag doesn't provide users with an option to search for sources, and users have to go to another web page, specifically the AfD for the article to easily access these sources. Rescue tags provide these links for source searching right in the article that is being considered for deletion, which is just. Furthermore, it does seem that oftentimes AFD tags are added hastily to articles without the required source search stated in section "D" of WP:BEFORE. Finally, while it's suggested on the rescue tag template page that the addition of a rescue tag to an article can be supported by arguments and source citing in the article's AfD, it's not an actual Wikipedia policy to do so— it's optional. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)"

Thank you for your intelligent analysis. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• You are most welcome. Your rescue spree is a good initiative as the project was getting rather moribund. Warden (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Article you started now at DYK

At the suggestion of Gerda Arendt, I did some expansion on Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, an article you started in 2009, which is now nominated for DYK with you as a co-author.[11] If you want to add more or comment, please feel free! Sharktopus ^talk 22:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Good work in taking this forward. I have added an image now which might help the DYK. Warden (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

In appreciation of your debating skills

	The Debate Award
	In the spirit of the (allegedly unresolved) Latke–Hamantash Debate, please accept this token of appreciation. Novickas (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You are most kind. I am not familiar with this debate but am definitely in the latke camp. Currently eating pain aux raisins though. I'm now thinking that the drool article needs an entry for Homer Simpson. Warden (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a cromulent idea. Especially if it included an audio clip Novickas (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The OED doesn't have that word so, for the first time, Wiktionary was useful to me in explaining that joke. Nice one. Warden (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Presumtions of bad faith

You know that Andy is an established editor. Is it really necessary to be so caustic during an AfD? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• The relevant guideline for this matter of the India Education Program seems to be WP:BITE. That urges us to protect newbies not established editors. The topics which have been selected for this program all seem quite respectable and it is quite improper that any of them should be taken to AFD. Warden (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

C'mon Warden, there are no guidelines that say we should bite the regulars either. You rarely do page patrol and you have no idea of the extent of the problem we're facing with the India project's creations and edits. There's nothing wrong with the topics but there has been massive blatant copyvio - even the programme's ambassadors are doing it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• If copyright violation is the problem then the appropriate forum is WP:Copyright problems not AFD - see WP:COPYVIO#Dealing with copyright violations which explains the escalation process. But the case of boiler design seems different and copyright violation wasn't mentioned in the nomination. AFD does not seem the right place for this. If an article is a non-starter then it should be speedied. If it's a viable topic or sub-topic then it is better to deal it with using ordinary editing - improvement, stubbing, merger &c. Warden (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the things I really do care about is WP:BITE. I've very carefully sat on the sidelines with this IEP mess, just to give these students a fair shot at it.

However enough is enough. There has clearly been no real management of this course: no explanation of basic editing practice, copyvios, off-line drafting or simple formatting (at least how to keep it simple and working, rather than pasting in broken slabs of tables that just don't render). We're now at a point where others have descended to clear up the copyvios because we as a project have to. Now I'm stuck between students on one hand and copyvio-cleaners on the other, when we've already started to see articles that were valid articles a few months ago being deleted because of recent additions. Sorting this mess out doesn't leave a lot of room for fluffiness and hand-holding students, when it was someone else's job to do that weeks or months ago. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• As explained to Kudpung, AFD is not the way to address copyright issues, which continually arise in Wikipedia. If the topic is notable then it should just be knocked back to a stub or reverted to its earlier version. Warden (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with these articles is that there's nothing in them except the copyios!

I don't much care about the copyvios. Other people are looking after those. If they're obvious they'll be found, probably by 'bots, and if they're reworded too far to be detectable, then I'm not going to lose any of my sleep over them. My concern is about article quality, and the fact that none of these articles from the whole IEP (show me the exceptions!) are making worthwhile encyclopedic additions except where they're a simple copy & paste vio from elsewhere.

What is ARS for? Presumably to rescue worthwhile material that is otherwise under threat of deletion from those nasty unappreciative deletionists. Fine, so go and rescue some - I support this wholeheartedly. However where is there anything in boiler design or DIGITAL STORAGE OSCILLOSCOPE that is worth saving? Boiler design is just a spew of unconnected verbiage. There are words there, even sentences, but there's no content. No-one becomes wiser afterwards for having read boiler design. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that you know too much about these topics and so are dissatisfied with anything less than an advanced and polished treatment. But this is a general encyclopedia which is open to anyone to edit and so should be starting at a basic level with the most elementary facts for each topic. The boiler design article is still at the basic crude stage and that's fine - it provides a startpoint for further work. Perfect is the enemy of good. Warden (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're really still trying to get me topic banned for knowing too much, then you know where ANI is. I would also wonder why you're interested in an encyclopedia.

Your position would seem to be that I'm some sort of perfectionist who is thus unreasonably dissatisfied with DIGITAL STORAGE OSCILLOSCOPE. Have you read it? How can you even begin to defend "articles" like that? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• WP:POINT much? You're just not interested in articles, are you? What is it, the opportunity to feel "that you're doing something"? You've now managed to move from a non-article to an article that could, and indeed was, written automatically by Google for you. How little respect you have for actual editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• I wrote a reply just now but didn't get to save it properly. Anyway, in the course of checking out that article, I found a source and decided to make a start on fixing it up as we don't seem to have anything better at Oscilloscope#Digital storage oscilloscope. This is standard editing - see WP:STUB. If you don't like stubs, newbie editors and this level of work then you should perhaps avoid NPP and work of that type - stick to FA/GA reviews perhaps. Warden (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for barnstar - it was just a case of "When the facts change ..."[12]. (Humour) When can you fix the rest of the duff articles from IEP and elsewhere ? DexDor (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• In my copious free time, NOT. No, I'm just going to get involved if their topics, which generally seem to be notable, are brought to AFD. I'll keep an eye on the project page though. Warden (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Although really your work embiggened the article more than mine did. So yesterday I KNOW I found a US gov site with a nice table of welding symbols, but now I can't find it again. It was low-res tho and people here hate those. In case I find it again, it seems there is software out there to fix these things up, do you by any chance have access to any of those? Not really necessary to demonstrate notability, but would be nice. Regards, Novickas (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, boogers, it was a Los Alamos National Lab site [13], and I can't make out whether it would be OK to basically copy that, looking at the home site's copyright policy [14]. Maybe fair use, but that usually involves a more aggressive stance than I'm comfortable with. Novickas (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Go through the article history, find the copyvio-deleted Commons image (which is probably still on Commons as yet) and the deletion nomination at Commons links to an online copy of the source book. The symbols are in there - if you have the time and graphics skills to reproduce them appropriately, then this would be a valuable contribution.

The crux of this article is that table of symbols - there can be no useful article without it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If the article is kept, you could make the crux argument at a merge discussion. It'll be on my watchlist now, but in case this happens and I don't show up, please leave a message at my talk page. Novickas (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"cohen cruse ruse"

Hey Warden - you may remember me from the AfD about Valhalla Vineyards. Really appreciated your good offices at the time. I'm trying to gather some more experienced folks to help me investigate a fairly elaborate network of faked articles and fake info inserted into real articles - I am calling it the Cohen Cruse Ruse. Even if you don't have time to get involved, you might appreciate reading a bit about the fakery - it feels to me kind of like some kind of a wiki-dan brown novel. Fake aristocrats, winemaking families, the works! But if you do have time to help ferret out what's amiss, I'd welcome the help! Vivisel (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin closure

I have reverted your non-admin closure of List of "Occupy" protest locations. As has been pointed out multiple times, "snow" or "speedy" is not appropriate here. In addition, in contentious debates, non-admins are discouraged from closing. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That was not a contentious debate - it's a blatant case of snow. I have commented further on your improper reversion at your talk page. Warden (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin closures are reserved for genuinely non-contentious matters. If you want to be an admin, you have to go through an RfA. In the meantime, this was clearly inappropriate, and Crusio was right to revert you. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• This is genuinely non-contentious as the consensus is blatantly obvious - why prolong the agony? Warden (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have to agree with the Colonel here. This AfD has zero chance of being closed any other way than Keep. One extra day of voting is clearly not going to change anything. I know AfD's are not about vote counting, but currently there are 35 keeps or speedy keeps, 4 deletes (including nom), and 1 merge. This started out as a silly AfD, and you guys are now only making it sillier. For an admin to misunderstand policy to the point of even nominating this article for deletion is one thing, but to then further misunderstand by reverting a snow close where the keeps are running at nearly 90% is becoming concerning. —SW— ^yak 13:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

And the consequence was... that a third snow close was made and seems to have stuck this time. Warden (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Because, as somebody else said, the mob with pitchforks was not going to be denied; and there was no sense holding out for an actual discussion of the facts involved or attempting to defend oneself from the lies being told. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You can't possibly be serious. A discussion with 40+ !voters (where 90% agree) doesn't count as a sufficient "discussion of the facts involved"? Or was it just not a discussion of the facts as you see them? And I think your characterization of the "mob with pitchforks" is what we normally like to call "consensus". —SW— ^comment 21:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of the pile-on was not from active editors like you and the Colonel, Snotty, but from folks who'd never participated in an AfD before that I can remember. There were ad hominem attacks, flat-out nonsense and falsehoods, seemingly deliberate misrepresentations, etc.; and close to a dozen of the classic invalid retention arguments, from USEFUL to ILIKEIT. I've seen actual, genuine SNOW AfDs, and this wasn't one of them. It felt like a lynch mob, not an AfD discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Accusations

I'd appreciate it if you'd withdraw the accusations of me being a sockpuppet of a banned user you made here. I am not, and that's a very nasty accusation to make without any evidence. 86.** IP (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• You seem to have some history, rather than being a new editor. I see it suggested that you have formerly edited as Shoemaker's Holiday and Vanished user and that seems plausible. I am not sure of all the details of the relevant arbcom case but my understanding is that if you invoke WP:RTV, you are supposed to actually vanish. Warden (talk) 07:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • So, you're engaging in random, unfounded speculation without a jot of evidence? Nice work! 86.** IP (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    • (talk page stalker) If you were just an IP before you created this account: oh, well. But you are most clearly not a new account. Are there any other named accounts you've edited under, or just IPs? You're under no real obligation to disclose this, of course. Doc talk 08:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry I put it in the wrong userspace. You must get that a lot. I knew your username had Colonel is front and I just had a brain fart.--v/r - TP 16:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem - I figured out where it was by looking at your contributions. I've been trying displaying my account name in abbreviated form since it was suggested that a military title might be too provocative, contrary to WP:BATTLEGROUND. And it's perhaps easier for people if it's shorter - less to read. It may cause confusion in cases like this but this is the first time it's happened. Warden (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

To Market

I have requested assistance with suggestions for clarity in "To Market, To Market" article, and hope I have properly placed my notes in the discussion section of the article. Many thanks. Mrsbray (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Trying to avoid being an Arse Hat Newbie, but persisting in my stubborn argument at To Market, so please consider notes there. Thank you.

Mrsbray (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Medieval Siege Society and others

I am puzzled by why you think I am not "reliable"?

I think that on the whole, most of the articles which I have PRODed have been deleted as they have not been contested, or have gone to AfD after being contested and then been deleted.

Yes, there have been some which have not been deleted - but that does not mean that I am not reliable, surely?

I have no problem with you contesting the PROD (I'll take that article to AfD later when I have more time to do so), I merely object to the personal attack!

Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me add that I am not claiming to be perfect! Some of the PRODs and AfDs I have initiated have turned out to be incorrect (that's the benefit of Wikipedia - the community decides what happens, a great strength in a checks-and-measures way) - but none of them have been done without some thought and some investigation. The only objection I have here is to you branding me as 'unreliable' as that is something which I think does not tally with my history on this project. If you look at how I PRODed these, you'll see that they weren't done within seconds of each other - I did Google News/Books/Scholar searches for each one - and there were either none with the organisation name in or a couple which upon checking had a minor mention (eg in a list of organisations but not significant coverage about the specific organisation). If an article had references, I looked those up to see how much coverage there was. This was not "scattergun" in approach as one of your compadres suggested (otherwise they would all have been PRODed over the space of a minute or two!). The only reason I looked at them in the first place was because I deleted someone's article about a reenactment group and they used the "other stuff exists" argument - that drew my attention to the sorry state of referencing for the articles and so I started looking for sources, finding none suitable, and then PROD/AfDing. Regards, -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 05:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I already checked the timing of your nominations and found that it did appear that you were making diligent searches. The trouble must be that either your search technique is weak or your standards are too high. The Medieval Siege Society, for example, made the national news when one of the participants got a spear in the head. The coverage there alone provided enough detail to support a stub or an entry in a list of such societies. Please see WP:BEFORE which explains that, not only should you make a search, but that "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article." Warden (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Perspicacity

If you wish to work on this article then I am happy to restore it. I do note that you last edited it in December 2010. It is possibly slightly disengenous to call yourself the author of the article, as it was created by Cyrillic in 2006. But I would concede that this creation consisted only of redirect to Wiktionary which, of course, is the trans-wiki to which I refer in my deletion.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Churnalism

I love the term Churnalism. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. (unfortunately, I found a dead link when trying to view the origin.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have amended the article to demote that citation. There are plenty more sources though and I'll make another trawl to see what's new when I get a chance. Warden (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I did a brief search myself, and was unable to find it online. Our procedures for dealing with linkrot could be improved, I know some are working on it; I hope there is some success.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

My good Colonel, thanks for being such an oustanding editor. Wishing you a very merry Christmas and a happy new year! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Back garden

If you're going to insist on having the English term of that article as the title, as opposed to the Australian, American or Canadian term (or that of any other English term), then at least indicate in the lead paragraph that the article is about a part of English culture. Alternatively, re-add the {{Globalize}} template. Incidentally, although I can understand why your reversion of the article title would necessitate changing each menton of "back yard" to "back garden", I cannot understand how it would be necessary to completely revert every change I made. For example, wikilinks I had clarified now again lead to dab pages or otherwise wrong pages. As well, the article is once again excessively sectioned, where I left it with a simple and clear structure of sections. It's all very strange. ClaretAsh 09:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see that you've since fixed the links I'd already fixed but the article is still UK-centric. ClaretAsh 10:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The article's lead has the sentence "Such gardens have a special place in English suburban and gardening culture." which makes the topic clear. That seemed to have become lost in earlier versions and so I have restored it. The Australian experience seems somewhat different so would be better under another title such as backyard. The book The Life and Death of the Australian Backyard would be a good source for that. Warden (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I apologise if I came on a bit strong earlier. I was simply taken aback at what I saw as unconstructive edits. Anyway, thank you for the prompt response. I don't believe, though, that the sentence you mentioned makes it sufficiently clear that the topic deals with a part of British culture. Perhaps restrucuring that sentence to make it the opening sentence may work. As for the suggestion of a separate article for backyards, it may be viable but my impression is that British back gardens and Australian back yards hold identical places in their respective cultures. When I moved the page, my (eventual) purpose was for the article to cover the topic globally with separate sections for cultural variations. I selected back yard as the article title seemed more universal than the British term (being used in USA, Canada and Australia) as well as having the benefit of including the term "back garden". All back gardens either are, or are included in, back yards but not all back yards are back gardens. What are your thoughts on this? ClaretAsh 10:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with trying to do all this in one article is that both the terminology and the nature of the topic varies from country to country. In England, a backyard means an area of hard standing - paved or cobbled with little in the way of cultivation. This would be found in a commercial establishment where carts and horses would unload or would be the small, mean courtyard of a tiny industrial housing where the outside toilet might be found. A garden has quite a different character and so is best covered separately.

I got involved with this article when it was at AFD. It was created as back garden in the sense of British English. Since then, editors from other countries have introduced mention of their local terminology and this culminated in your move of the article to back yard. But that was improper because WP:RETAIN explains that the first usage is preferred in such cases and editors should not transform articles to favour their preferred dialect.

As there are sources which explicitly cover Australian backyards by that name, the way forward is for you to develop back yard into an article about how things go there. You'll have the Americans to deal with but my impression is that the type of back yard found in those countries is similar and quite unlike a UK back garden, being more spacious, comparatively dry and dusty and more devoted to activities and features appropriate to hot countries such as barbecues and swimming pools. Warden (talk) 11:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Thank you for clarifying. ClaretAsh 11:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Back yard currently redirects to yard (land) which is something of a disambiguation page, explaining the various uses of the word. If you need any technical help turning back yard into a separate stub or article, please feel to ask. See also WP:SPLIT. I'd do it immediately myself but don't want to tread on your toes any more without asking. Good fences make good neighbours :) Warden (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into it. I may not get time to do it properly any time soon, though. I can already envisage a dearth of good sources. Also, I've still got another couple of projects cooking at the moment. Thanks for your help, though. By the way, I was about to correct you about your "dry and dusty" comment earlier, but I mowed the lawn today and just remembered that, in doing so, I did get a little covered in dust. Evidently, my back garden is drier than I thought. ClaretAsh 13:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• As you're busy, I've made a start - see what you think at backyard. Now for my chores, alas. Warden (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I love it. You've summed up the Australian situation perfectly. Plus, the image reminds me of my late grandparent's place. Thank you for doing this. ClaretAsh 23:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback. I looked for a picture in Brisbane as that's where a friend of mine comes from. A picture always helps an article get started, I find - it's worth a thousand words, as they say. Some parts of the picture reminded me of my grandparent's place too but that was in Cheshire. Warden (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Sorry to but in here--any thoughts on where to put the US usage? As far as I know, the term used in the US is "backyard", but it has the same meaning as the UK "back garden", not the Australian "backyard". The only reason I chimed in is because my students in Japan often translate a sentence from Japanese to English using the word "back garden"...and the first dozen times I saw it I thought they were simply making a mistake, by using a literal translation. It wasn't until much later that I found out that this was a US/UK issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• There's an article America's Backyard but that's another topic. I suppose that the USA details would go in a section in backyard too but I'm not sure what we'd put there as I haven't seen a source as good as The Life and Death of the Australian Backyard about the US. The one thing I've noticed myself there is the great number of swimming pools. When you fly into a US city and look out the window as you land, you see huge numbers of blue outdoor swimming pools - every house seems to have one. I'm not sure what becomes of the rest of the backyard when you have a large swimming pool. Iirc, Tony Soprano's back yard seemed to be dominated by their pool and there wasn't much of a garden there. I go looking for sources and just find ones about Australia - The New Complete Aussie Backyard Book, for example.

From the sound of it, American backyards seem to have more in common (both in structure and in use) with their Australian counterpart than with the British. Perhaps it comes down to the relative sizes: Americans and Australians traditionally had large enough areas to make backyard an accurate term, whereas in Britain (where a home with a swimming pool, sauna and room for a pony is something to brag about) backgarden is the more accurate term. That's my WP:OR, anyway. Perhaps, we should consult the Americans? ClaretAsh 11:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Schools

Where you favour 'keep' and I prefer 'redirect' for non notable schools, we may differ; nevertheless I think it's fair to say that we both concur with the mainstream view that deletion should only be implemented as a last resort. My immediate concern however, is that some AfD debates may not be being closed at all according to policy. Anyone can make a mistake, but three of in a row raise's an eyebrow. As yet, the closing admin has not responded but I am in a very different time zone - in the meantime I would welcome your thoughts. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• I suppose that the closing admin did not read the discussion in those cases. If he does not revert, they should be easy to overturn at DRV. Warden (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Jan 2012

As an experienced editor, I would have thought you'd know better than to make personal attacks against other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Barley Mow, Clifton Hampden. It's clear from the outset of that debate that it wasn't a frivolous or vexatious nomination, as I detailed the reasons for the nomination clearly. Your own userpage has the Hierarchy of Disagreement diagram on it, but I guess you must have just liked the pretty colours. Please keep a civil tongue in your head in future. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• I disparaged the nomination, not your person. That nomination, and the preceding prod, were attacks upon productive content. Per WP:SAUCE, you have no good grounds for complaint if your own postings are criticised. Please see The Golden Rule. Warden (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Running to Aunty Ani

If I were one of those many editors who who deliberately look for the slightest possible hint of PA in every post they read, like them I would be wasting everyone's time by running to clutch Aunty Ani's apron hem, bawling with crocodile tears. That said, "My impression is that the schools project is now run largely by haters who are constantly at loggerheads with advocates and old boys of particular schools." is just going a bit OTT, even tongue-in-cheek  ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• I described this as an "impression" because I'm still figuring out the background to this spate of schools AFDs. There seems to be something dysfunctional about projects which causes them to try to delete topics which are their concern. As I patrol all AFDs, I notice this pattern from time to time - the aircraft project wanting to delete a general article about aircraft design; the wine project wanting to delete an article about a vineyard; the engineering project wanting to delete an article about steam engines; &c. My theory is that, because such folk are expert in the field, they have correspondingly high standards which makes them intolerant of inferior work. Rather than improving it, they prefer to delete it so that the field is left clear for themselves.

As I have attended more of these schools AFDs than I can count now, some general observations of this sort seem appropriate and I have been reading yours with interest (e.g. your exchange with DGG). I think we agree that the process is unsatisfactory but what is to be done? Epeefleche seems to be on a general deletion spree. The individual nominations are not unreasonable but may be too hasty, contrary to WP:BEFORE. Perhaps this is what's needed to bring AFD to its knees and so provoke a better system. We shall see.

Anyway, if you object to the characterisation of "hater", please take this as a case of "if the cap fits, wear it". My specific impression is that you are the most productive member of the school project though I've not seen the love yet. Maybe I've just not looked in the right place yet. As I say, it is just an impression - a commment meant to break the monotony of the cookie-cutter AFD debates, trying to engage with the matter at a higher level of understanding and sharing.

Warden (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, you probably are looking the wrong place, and I've molly-coddled 100s of other miserable school creations by 'can't-be-bothered' SPAs back to life - it's what makes up the majority of these mainspace edits. If you think I'm wasting my time, don't hesitate to tell me where I can best invest my Wikipedia enthusiasm delusion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

FAR Transhumanism

I have nominated Transhumanism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The article is within the scope of this WikiProject. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Dan Daniels

Speedy deletion nomination of Dan Daniels

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Dan Daniels requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Dan Daniels for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dan Daniels is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Daniels until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Epeefleche (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Dan Daniels

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do minor tweak to your evidence at ArbCom

Hi there; could you please take a look at this section, and tweak your evidemce from saying "the most offensive" to "a most offensive"?

I'm sure you did not mean deliberately to misrepresent the source, and this was simply an oversight on your part as you almost certainly weren't looking at how all the other words were described, but as it stands your evidence section isn't an accurate representation of what the source meant. And anybody relying on the evidence alone, and not reading the whole source, could be unintentionally very much misled. Thank you! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Pesky, the Colonels work is well known for its high fidelity to the sources, and the submission to the Arb board was no exception. The Colonels evidence doesnt say "the most offensive". That is however a reasonable assumption to draw from the exact words of the source: "Most offensive to a majority..." , which may account for why some might see a phantom 'the'. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Feyd is correct. There's a story told by my namesake in his history of WW2: I am reminded of the professor who, in his declining hours, was asked by his devoted pupils for his final counsel. He replied, "Verify your quotations." Warden (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Offer of assistance

Please. I'm not certain how to handle it and worried about escalating it. :( But not sure what else to do at this point. --LauraHale (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Judge Dredd

{{uw-npa}} Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawgiver (Judge Dredd)

Citizen! That sort of unwarranted attack is going to earn you ten years in an iso-cube. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by Nobel laureates

I closed this because it was an editor's userpage that had been moved without discussion, and he had asked that it be moved back. The AFD nominator then moved it back and removed the AFD tag (here), thus withdrawing the nomination. There being no !votes to delete the article, I closed the AFD. It seems pretty cut and dry, and I don't know what purpose additional time on a userfied article would serve. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you moved it back to the mainspace. I don't think there's consensus for that either, and I'd ask that you revert the move. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You can't close something the day it was nominator. That's against the rules. Give it the seven days. Dream Focus 17:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If it's withdrawn, it's withdrawn - that happens routinely. But I'll revert my close since apparently the nominator doesn't have that luxury. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I verified the rankings of the source you gave and the book agrees with me : it ranks countries according to fractions of prizes (not the number of laureates) and doesn't rank or give data per capita (so that's still OR). So, you need other sources to reach the threshold of notability required. So have you these sources or any other reason to keep the list? Eleventh1 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Per WP:CALC, simple arithmetic such as division is not OR. Anyway, the discussion seems to have restarted so it would be best to continue there. Warden (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Secrets of a Small Town

Why did you deprod? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Please see the talk page of the article in question. Warden (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I see nothing but a "was this picked up?" comment, unsigned, by a user who made no other edits. That doesn't help me in the least. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have updated that talk page now. It is best to discuss the matter there so that other interested editors may participate. Warden (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for using deceptive edit summaries. In this edit, your edit summary included (in the cryptic code that you force everyone monitoring you to use) the text + links to sources &c. In fact, you added no links or sources, and the relevant edit to the article also contained no links or sources. This has been a chronic pattern with your editing, and no good faith explanation exists: you use your edit summaries to lie to other editors in order to attempt to deceive them into keeping articles. Any admin considering an unblock should review WP:ANI#Colonel Warden.—Kww(talk) 02:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC). If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

• Those links don't work for me - presumably the talk page in question has been deleted and so can only viewed by admins and the like. The related article seems to have been about Secrets of a Small Town which was, iirc, an ABC TV series which didn't get past the pilot stage. This must have been a prod issue. In that case, I searched for sources and soon found some coverage in Variety. I suppose I removed the prod and then updated the talk page with the boilerplate which I usually use in such cases. The standard boilerplate I use is:

---

• I have removed the {{prod}} tag which proposed that this article be deleted, because I think that this article has merit and so should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here as notification. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article as that process is only to be used when there is no opposition. Warden (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

---

The edit summary which goes along with this is usually standard too and my browser prompts me with this. The "links to sources" are provided by the {{find}} template. Maybe in this case, the template isn't working for some reason. Or perhaps I broke up my boilerplate to merge it with other existing text on the talk page and that piece of it was mislaid. You should find some or all of these elements on the deleted talk page.

Now, as I recall, TenPoundHammer queried the matter and I referred him to that talk page above. He didn't pursue the matter and so I supposed that he was content that enough had been done to establish the bona fides of the article. How did the article subsequently get deleted? Was it taken to AFD or what?

Warden (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There is an ANI thread discussing this. 67.117.144.57 (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. From what is said there, it seems that I did, in fact, add links to sources in my usual way. Investigating further, I find that the article was taken to AFD where it was deleted. TenPoundHammer said nothing about this AFD in our conversation above. I suppose he assumed that I had seen this on my watchlist but I had not. I was quite unaware that the article had been taken to AFD and that's why I didn't comment there. That is annoying but I would not accuse TPH of deliberately misleading me or keeping me in the dark. As Goethe said, "misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice". Warden (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• If you wish to make a "keep" argument I'll be glad to roll back the close and copy over your !vote. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Reverting the close is not a standard process. It might be simpler and less controversial just to userfy the article and its talk page. Non-admins like me can then review the article, talk page and their edit history to see what all the fuss is about. Warden (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Userfied to User:Colonel Warden/Secrets of a Small Town. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked

Colonel, I have unblocked you. That doesn't mean that I agree with the edit and the associated summary that led to it, it means that I think that (as I explained at ANI) the block was excessive and should have been done by someone who is not involved with you. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. I have been making similar edits to talk pages for several years now and have provided some examples in the ANI discussion. Warden (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: Since you know it offends multiple editors, why don't you stop doing it? Yopienso (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• This incident was related to a prod. My updating of talk pages following a prod removal was to provide the improved communication which was suggested at the RfC/U. But if editors are going to find fault with my updating of talk pages then it might indeed be better not to do so. This would save me a chore and would give them less opportunity to nitpick my actions. I shall consider this but suppose that it's a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. Warden (talk)

Where's the damnation in not doing it?

Your RfC reminded you "to follow well established best practices regarding sourcing of articles, and discussing contested sources."

I know I've seen you around Wikipedia, but can't remember where or how. To the best of my memory, you have been a productive and civil fellow editor. It just seems silly to me--or even rude--to insist on doing what you've done hundreds of times now that you know it's offensive. Somehow I don't think this week was the first time you found out not everyone appreciated your method. The remedy seems simple, doesn't it? Do it their way, or don't do it at all. Blessed if you do, blessed if you don't. :-) Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

A small number of people don't like something, doesn't mean they should bully others to get their way. If an article needs more sources, no sense not putting that there somewhere so its easier to search for them, and thus people are more likely to do so. I honestly believe most people don't care one way or the other. Dream Focus 02:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I would agree if I hadn't read the RfC. Since I have, and noticed you participated there, your response seems disingenuous. He's been asked to conform to standard practice. Yopienso (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't bother reading all of it. Seemed to just be everyone agreeing that someone was misusing their power against someone they didn't like. There are no standard practice or guidelines involved in this sort of thing that I'm aware of. Dream Focus 02:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What a load of crap. Can we do anything about this admin abuse? CallawayRox (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

How about your language, is there any room for improvement there?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No one supported me at ANI in objecting to an admin calling another editor a liar.  Is this a point to explore?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really. It's not exactly breaking news that admins can call other editors pretty much whatever they like, with impunity. Malleus Fatuorum 04:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're talking about the recent Kww fiasco, I'll note that I separately objected to it. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A formal warning

It is very rare for me to speak with any authority, as someone who frequently rails against "admin privlidge. But this is a formal warning, as in "I'm an administrator."

Your recent comments "Note that Aaron Brenneman deleted that article soon after posting that comment. That seems to be an act of petty vengeance but so it goes at AFD." are not acceptable. There are various pages I could fling at you, but I'm sure you know the relevant policies.

If you do not cease combative language of this nature, you will be blocked for disruption.

I'll be placing a note on the administrator's noticeboard regarding both the deletion that I performed and this warning. (Post edit: here it is.)

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have commented over there. The gist of it is that you seem too involved for your warning to have any formal force. Warden (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most highly populated countries

Just wondering why you think speedy keep is valid when the clear consensus was delete. You also recycle the rather weak argument of " editing policy" as a reason to keep in AfDs. Best way to demonstrate notability is to provide actual multiple sources, not weak arguments. LibStar (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I routinely provide actual sources and did so in that case. And editing policy is not a weak argument because it is a firm policy and so trumps lesser guidelines. Warden (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

it is a weak argument when you recycle it to say all articles can be improved. in theory all articles can, so Warden's reasoning is that WP should never delete anything. That is not a substitute for demonstrating actual sources to establish notability. Secondly, the AfD in question is definitely an inappropriate case of speedy keep. It's a worn out tactic you use to attempt to close an AfD quickly and deter delete votes. LibStar (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• The reason for suggesting that the List of most highly populated countries should be speedily kept was that the nomination was so false that it should not have been taken seriously. And the nomination made no reference to any kind of policy or guideline - it was just an I-don't-like-it. As for sources, the article had over 60 citations including entire books and it was easy to find more sources because the topic has vast notability. But we needn't worry overmuch as all that material is all still there; it hasn't actually been deleted; it has just been made more difficult for you to see. Warden (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been on WP for several years and speedy keep is only used when there is strong consensus to keep from almost all voters. In fact, you're the only editor I've seen who turns up to vote speedy keep when it is clearly not the case. Suggest you be much more careful in use of speedy keep, rather than expect every article to be kept because Warden says so. LibStar (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

something cool

You can make it so that whenever someone edits your user or talk page, an imagine loads up and some text. Edit my page to see an example. User talk:Colonel Warden\Editnotice is where you add the code to. Dream Focus 17:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tip but I'm currently trying to figure out what happened to the contents page here. I suppose there's a template here which has interfered with it. I'll try some housekeeping to eliminate it. Warden (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Found it. Warden (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)