This is an archive of past discussions about User:Moonriddengirl. 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.
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi,
I'm contacting you about the Wikipedia page for DJ Sassy, which has undergone a number of edits over the last few months and has also been the subject of a discussion about possible deletion of the page.
My name is James McLeod and am Sassy's website administrator and DJ booking manager and have carried out a number of the recent edits at her request, including the addition of her current website biography information. If you wish to confirm my identity, please feel free to email me at administrator@djsassy.com or bookings@djsassy.com
I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but having read the comments about the edits and possible deletion of the DJ Sassy page, I am starting to understand the kind of editorial policies that are applied, and I appreciate that the style of some of the material that we submitted earlier this year may have been overly-subjective. We are quite prepared to limit the information that we put on the page to that which is more objective and more readily verifiable, and over the last five years or so I have accumulated an archive of press articles, internet pages, and other information that could be used on Sassy's page.
However, Sassy and I do have concerns about some of the information which was added by you to the page, and which I have therefore tried to remove. The first is the inclusion of Sassy's full name and the town in which she lives at the start of the article. I appreciate that this information can be found on the internet if you look for it, but we have strong reservations about making this so highly visible : a Google search for DJ Sassy lists the Wikipedia page right near the top, with her name and town clearly displayed in the search results. Sassy is in reality quite a private person, which is why there are relatively few press articles about her, and she has in the past been the victim of stalkers : this has been very distressing for her and is something that we are keen to avoid in the future. If you could agree to not include Sassy's full name in the Wikipedia page that would be a big help, and if we could also just say that she is from London that would be quite acceptable : Bromley is a London Borough after all, and she spent much of her childhood in South London.
We also have an issue with the Sol Campbell story. Although it is widely known that Sassy and Sol dated, the story presented in the newspaper was not accurate and so we do not believe that it should be included on the page. Indeed, the paper did subsequently print an apology over some of the points made.
I would be grateful for your feedback on the above. Our biggest concern is the identity issue, which Sassy is very concerned about, to the extent that she would consider asking for the DJ Sassy page to be deleted from Wikipedia. I very much hope that this will not be necessary and that we can work out a mutually acceptable way forward.
I look forward to hearing from you soon, and would appreciate it if you could not modify the page again until we have been able to discuss these issues further. Thanks.
If she is such a "private person" maybe she does not need a promotional page on one of the world's top websites. And if she is such a celebrity, her real name should not be a secret. And someone who works for her should not be editing the article about her, because that is a conflict of interest. FairmontMN (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for contacting me to discuss this, Mr. McLeod. :) It's not necessary to confirm your identity, as we appreciate constructive feedback from anyone. Also, we do appreciate your announcing your affiliation, and we respect your concerns. We don't have any desire to cause injury to Sassy, but only to make sure that her article remains within guidelines. Identifying information about birthplace can, I feel, be comfortably removed according to our biographies of living persons guidelines for security concerns. We try to operate from a presumption of privacy, and it is neither widely disseminated nor related to her notability. You have requested that I not modify the page until we've discussed the issue further, and I would very much like to reach consensus with you on these issues, but I will make this change as I feel certain you will agree. :) If you object to the change, please let me know, and I will restore the current version until things are settled.
As far as her name is concerned, the editor who contributed just above my response does have a point about her celebrity status. Her last name is widely referenced in sources, including the IMDB. However, "Saskia" is not used as widely as "Sassy". Would changing the name to "Sassy Porter" to accord with the majority of sources be acceptable to you? If you feel that even the use of the more widely used name is dangerous, I will be glad to ask for additional feedback from the biographies of living persons noticeboard to see if other editors experienced in these kinds of concerns feel that we can appropriately remove it. If they do not or if you don't wish to go that route you may, as one contributor to the conflict of interest noticeboard suggested, wish to consider requesting deletion. (You seem very Wikipedia savvy, so I mean no insult in the offer, but if you choose to go that route and have difficulty formatting the request, I'd be happy to help.) I believe as I argued in the last deletion debate that she is notable enough for inclusion, but I do not believe that she is so notable that we should fight to retain the article over her objection. (Just to explain what I mean by that: obviously, there are some individuals who would rather not be on Wikipedia because the incidents that made them famous are not pleasing to them. This would be the case with highly publicized criminals, as a single exaggerated example.) I won't make that change until I've heard further from you about it.
It took me a moment to understand what you meant by the Sol Campbell story, as evidently you have been mistakenly removing the article above it, which is a review of the television show on which Sassy appeared. That interview was provided simply to substantiate that Sassy is notable enough for an article. It isn't necessarily related to her notability (since it says little about her career but only discusses her dating), and I have no concerns that its removal would unbalance the article. If you would like the 2004 interview (this one) removed, let me know and I will take it out.
Finally, I would like to note that I mean no disrespect in referring to her here as Sassy. :) I'm trying to address her as you (and she) evidently prefer here as we attempt to reach an understanding about the article's contents. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and feedback : all very useful. I must confess that I am still quite inexperienced with Wikipedia, and am certainly on a steep learning curve now, but it's all interesting stuff.
Thanks for changing Bromley, Kent to London. That is still accurate, but less specific, and also probably much more useful to an international audience.
I appreciate your comments with regard to Sassy's full name, and the uses of Saskia and Porter in various other sources. I will talk to Sassy about this, but I am almost certain that her preference would be to not include her real name (in any of its forms) in the Wikipedia page. In practice, everyone in her industry always refers to her as DJ Sassy (or DJ Sassy P or DJ Sassy Pandez), so I don't believe that including her real name adds any value. If you could possibly seek additional feedback on this from other editors I think that would be useful, and then we can decide on the best way forward from there.
As for the deletion of the references, I think that this is probably where my inexperience with Wikipedia shows itself. I understand the basic concept, but it gets complicated when one reference gets used multiple times on the page. My intention was to remove the reference for the Sol Campbell article, so if you could do that for me I would be grateful. I did also want to remove the reference for the Poor Little Rich Girls review, as I do have some alternative references for this which are much better, although I'll need to make sure that they are still valid first.
I do have various other references which can be used to support this page. Some are links to websites, others are scans or PDFs of articles and flyers from Sassy's DJ events, and some are video clips of her at work. I can make a selection of these available via links to her website if that would be helpful.
Assuming that we can resolve the remaining issues with Sassy's Wikipedia page, I would like to understand the best way to carry out future updates, given the perceived "conflict of interest" status with this page? I have read through the Conflict of Interest guidance page, and am not entirely clear on exactly how it would work for me. But we can discuss that more later.
For now, we need to sort out the issue of Sassy's real name being on the page. I'll speak to Sassy and if you can get some additional feedback from other editors then we'll see how we can move forward from there.
You may be new, but you're picking it up very quickly. :)
The reference is re-listed because it is re-used for information. This is a common practice. This particular article is more scrupulously referenced than many because of the previous questions about sourcing. At the time this article was considered for deletion, there were no sources at all, except to her website, which is not usable in large degree.(Sources connected to the subject can be used to add detail to an article, but not to verify notable material. This is the case, obviously, because we find it far easier to rely on sources not connected to the subject for unbiased and accurate information.) Everything that could not be substantiated had to be removed. This isn't because it's necessarily untrue, but simply because verifiability is core policy. Wikipedia's users must be able to locate the source.
Staying on the subject of sourcing, other references could be useful. You should probably read over the verifiability policy linked just above and the reliable sources guideline for the kind of thing Wikipedia looks for. Flyers are probably not usable, but websites are great, if they meet the standards. I know it can be very hard to find websites that do. I spent considerable time searching for those when I was investigating her article. It can also be hard to tell if they do. If you're not sure if something qualifies, please feel free to discuss it with me. If I don't know, either, I'll try to find out. :) Articles in print sources can be good also, but they are a little bit problematic for a couple of reasons. You presumably can't post them on her website for copyright concerns; we can't use them from her website for the same reason. :/ If they are published on her website with permission, which would eliminate the copyright concern, they would still not be regarded as being quite as reliable as they might be, since they would presumably have been cherry-picked by the subject and might not reflect a balanced view. I would feel comfortable using them to source biographical information, for instance, but not critical reception. (In other words, we could source her height from them, but we wouldn't necessarily note on their basis that she is considered "the best DJ ever", even if they said so, because these hand-picked sources might not reflect the majority view.) All that said, the publication information on them (or some of them, if there are many) can be added to a "further reading" section, which could be useful to readers who want to learn more about DJ Sassy.
In terms of sourcing currently present, I have removed the Sol Campbell article. As I said above, it is not connected with her notability. Wikipedia is not meant to be a collection of external links, anyway. We're more interested in sources and items that can give more depth of understanding to our readers about the notable aspects of the subject. I've also removed the review of the TV show, after some consideration. It is related to her celebrity, and we do, honestly, have to watch out for article subjects and those related to them attempting to control negative information in articles. However, it's a review, and there are no other reviews linked or listed in the article. As it stands, it's just straightforward biography. If the article contained a lot of promotional reviews, then this critical (frankly, downright nasty) piece might be necessary to maintain balance, but it's not. As I said at the COIN noticeboard, it was only included in the first place to help demonstrate that Sassy met the notability guidelines by being widely referenced in published sources.
I believe this leaves us with two questions: the issue of the name and the matter of how you may participate in the article in the future.
In terms of the former, I will wait to take action until you've spoken with her. It may make a difference to some responders to know whether she is herself requesting this. It may not. But it's better to have that information. I do want to make sure you realize, though, that even if other editors believe an exception to the style guide would be appropriate in this case, her name will still be readily accessible from the sources, including the IMDb, which is listed among the references and so is visible on the page. Her name is out there, whether an exception is made here or not. The only way to keep it off of Wikipedia, so long as the references include it, would be to seek deletion as I mentioned above. (And then, of course, it would work only if the article were deleted; this would be judged by the consensus of contributing editors.)
Finally, the way to request updates in the future is to note them on the article's talk page. I've taken on the responsibility of monitoring the article since I contributed to saving it from deletion, which means that I will most likely notice if you post on the talk page and help you if I am able. Other editors may also respond. (I'm not sure if you're aware, since you're new, that every article has a "talk" page just as every user does. If you haven't explored the tabs, you may not have discovered Talk:DJ Sassy.) As an editor with a conflict, you can place {{Request edit}} (complete with brackets) above your proposal, and an uninvolved editor will review your requests and implement them as long as they are within guideline. If you don't get a response within a relatively short time, you could wander over to the help desk and ask for assistance there. Be prepared, though! People will scrutinize your suggestions. :) Wikipedia is so heavily used for promotional purposes that its editors can be extremely paranoid about it. This is less likely to be a problem for you, as you are being so reasonable, but you might want to read over the essay suggesting how to comply with the COI guidelines for more ideas.
If you do decide to make any changes to the article yourself, please be sure that they are non-controversial. You're welcome to remove vandalism, for instance...and we do get a lot of it. The COI guidelines you've already read talk about the kinds of changes that are non-controversial. The vandalism policy I've linked may also help. --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Zodiac Pages
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
I understand, on re-reading, on the page you commented on was slightly notable.
WP:CSD#A7 doesn't require notability. It requires a suggestion that the subjects may be important. If you feel the subjects are non-notable, you are welcome to consider other deletion processes, but the speedy deletion criterion is deliberately worded to prevent deletion of anything but the most clear-cut cases. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That states "to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." They do not give a reasonable indicastion of why they might be notable though. Rob Riv (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. You're welcome to take them up to AfD, where they can be judged by the notability standards, which as the A7 criterion notes, is far more rigorous. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now that I've finished what I was working on above, I can address this more fully. Though you're logged in now, I presume that you're the IP editor who tagged The Zodiac, Zodiac (band) and Zodiac Records. I'm not sure from the above which page you agree was slightly notable, so I'll address briefly all three. Zodiac Records is not eligible for speedy deletion by WP:CSD#A7 because it is not an article about a company, but a list of companies with the name. While not technically a disambiguation page, it serves the same purpose, to help people quickly reference various entities of the same name. Even if it were an article on a company, and subject to A7, there is an assertion of importance in the phrase "featuring legendary punk pioneers". The Zodiac may or may not be notable, and I agree that the article is overly-promotional, but it claims that their album was "a cult classic". This is an assertion of importance. It also claims that one of its members was later member of a notable group, which is an assertion of notability. Zodiac (band) claims that the group "was extremely popular in the USSR". It also asserts four albums, at least two of which seem to be on notable labels. I do not know how much scrutiny any of these claims would survive, but they are credible claims, if unsourced. WP:CSD indicates that "These criteria are worded narrowly, so that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does and does not meet a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." Further down the page, under non-criteria, the policy specifies that "Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are only eligible for speedy deletion if the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." These do assert importance/significance, so reasonable doubt exists. AFD not only subjects the articles to more rigorous investigation, but allows the feedback of other interested articles who may be able to substantiate or refute these claims. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
With Zodiac Records, the mention of "Johnny Thunders & Wayne Kramer's Gang War" as being "pioneers", the band itself isn't doesn't have it's own page. If there were pioneers like the article suggests, they most likely would have their own page. Hence I concluded that that didn't assert notability in itself. Next, to my knowledge for the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" - there is no point that accepts "cult classic" as sufficient notability. I've been in a band that is considered quite cult in a particular area for example - for the same reason we would not be considered notable enough though. Also [:Zodiac (band)]] only mentions one album being on a notable label - I can't see references to any other releases on notable labels. Even still, that doesn't assert notability under the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles". Hence why I concluded these were open and shut cases. Rob Riv (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
←That sounds like a good idea. :) They aren't open and shut cases for the purpose of CSD, I'm afraid, although they may be for AFD. For instance, you say, "there is no point that accepts "cult classic" as sufficient notability." A7 says it "is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." If an album is a cult classic, then there may be widespread coverage in published sources. It might be notable. It might have sold enough to go gold. It might be notable. It doesn't have to prove or verify it in order to survive CSD. It just has to suggest that perhaps it could. CSD, again, is deliberately narrow, only intended to address the most obvious and blatant cases. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm still leaning towards a G7 here, so I've undone the redirect. It was a short-lived Christmas album on a non-notable label, and I doubt anyone would search for it specifically. Also, I doubt anyone would create a new page for it, seeing as nobody's even touched Ty Herndon in ages. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)18:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The COOKIE MONSTeR ate the cow
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Fattyjwoods(Push my button) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
. Hi just to make sure you’re not too hungry, I would’ve given you milk – but the cow just died and I tried to milk the bull but it kicked me in the face. *sob*. Anyway, enjoy the cookie!! Fattyjwoods(Push my button)01:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll certainly be happy to take a look. :) I'm just getting online this morning (in my part of the world), but I'll dive in after my brain is fully engaged. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sorry, I meant to write you earlier, but thank you for your compliment on my talk page! I hope that what I wrote helped him a bit! BWH76 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Rfb participation thanks
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, MoonRiddenGirl.
I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. I especially wanted to thank you for the thought and care you took in both making your decision as well as craftingyour support rationale; I am very appreciative of both. Although our joint efforts with Coppertwig may not result in a successful outcome this time around, I look forward to collaborating with you on potential RfA candidates in the future. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the cookie!
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Kitty53 (talk) has hugged you! Hugs promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better (and hopefully wasn't meant as an invasion of personal space). Spread the WikiLove by hugging at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Hug others by adding {{subst:Hug}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I know that Wind Dukes of Aaqa was previously deleted, and I created a redirect at the time. However, it looked like someone had created a new version of the article later. I don't know if that makes a difference - I know that just pasting the same content from an AFD-deleted article is worthy of a speedy delete, but does that apply if the article is completely rewritten? BOZ (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. :) The question is whether the new creation addresses the concerns that led to deletion in the first place; as WP:CSD#G4 indicates, "any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". Otherwise, any article deleted through AfD would have to be renominated if it were rewritten, even if the concerns that led to deletion remained. If you want to create another redirect, or if you'd like me to restore the redirect you had created, I don't see any problem with that. It's unfortunate that sometimes people do write over redirects not realizing that non-notability for a stand-alone article has already been determined. If you want me to restore the redirect, let me know. The deletion of the article was not meant as a reflection on your edit. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. :) Could you please restore the redirect then, and possibly the talk page? (it should be D&D|class=redirect in brackets, if it wasn't something else) BOZ (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! :) I could have just recreated the redirect, but to be honest I didn't even remember to where I had redirected it in the first place. ;) BOZ (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Faulty G7 requests for articles
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The G7 tag for Victor I. Petrik was placed by Huggle in what I figure was supposed to be a simple revert due to the removal of the hangon tag so two for two there. Next up, The joy formidable. This was an issue to me and still is as it's just a bunch of links and again was a result of the tool.
I'm saying it's the tool because I'm not that unaware or working too fast to notice when someone didn't blank the article as a request for deletion but marks it as such anyway. Feh, I'm sticking to more manual means of CSD in the future. treelotalk14:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Problematic tool use. I can relate to that. :) I've never used Huggle, but I've heard that there are issues with it. I'm keeping an eye on The joy formidable to see if it is developed further. If it's not, it's a prime candidate for A3. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thank spam
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky
TDR (journal), etc
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The one reference/link goes to a page where you have to pay in order to get access. I fail to see how it doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria as an advertisement. I also specifically said to the author on their talk page how to work on improving the article so that it wasn't an advertisement. If I'm in the wrong than I'm more than happy to help improve the articles somehow but, not on my own. Thanks for your time. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. WP:CSD#G11 serves to delete blatantly promotional articles. This article may have been created simply to draw attention to this journal, but the information is neutrally presented enough that I do not feel it qualifies as spam. As that guideline indicates, "Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website". While the link is to a subscription site, I don't think that the link itself is enough to push the article into "spam" category, given the lack of sales-oriented language. Note that Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations indicates that G11 is for use on articles that "Cannot be salvaged into a proper encyclopedia article on a notable topic". I'm not convinced that this is the case here. Your advice to the creator on his talk page seems quite proper. I see that DGG, who evidently declined another G11 tag on one of these articles, has provided more there. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, why did you block user WorkingInPartnershipProgramme? Which part of policy are they breaking? Did you ask them to change their username before you blocked them? Did you see that other editors were working with that user, talking about COI and helping the user to add content to the encyclopedia? Dan Beale-Cocks14:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I blocked the user for having a username "related to a 'real-world' group or organization" and using it to edit an article about that organization. The name was reported at Usernames for administrator attention, and I agreed that its use was inappropriate. As the blocking template indicates, username blocks are not punitive and are not meant to reflect badly on the user, but given his edits it was necessary for him to choose a different username. (I must add that he seems to have done so, given this.) I did indeed notice (and read) the conversation on the user talk page. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't find that phrase in the policy. I can find this "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited,". Please note: WiPP is not a 'group' or 'organisation'. Dan Beale-Cocks15:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I wasn't quoting policy at you. I was answering your first question, explaining my rationale. I didn't run down the line answering it point by point. From the policy, various points: "Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are misleading, promotional, offensive or disruptive...Promotional usernames are used to promote a group or company on Wikipedia. Administrators may issue username blocks under the following circumstances: * Usernames that are clearly unacceptable for use on Wikipedia, but have no obvious disruptive intent may be blocked indefinitely, but the block should affect only that account (disable autoblocks, and disable "prevent account creation"). If your account has been blocked for this reason, don't take it personally; it is intended to disable the username you chose, not to prevent you from contributing. Please read this page carefully and choose a more appropriate name." I did a soft username block, disabling autoblocks & prevent account creation. I will grant that WiPP is not in itself an organization; my use of that word above is wrong. I should have said "using it to edit an article promoting a group or company". There is, of course, a managing group for WiPP, WiPPAG. I perceive the name as unambiguously promotional and clearly unacceptable for use on Wikipedia.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for your assistance and effort to be an impartial sifter of the facts. While the article is clearly still a stub, I feel you were effective in removing the blatant ideological bias and misinformation when I was ethically bound not to do any edits. I posted a blog entry http://ianthal.blogspot.com/2008/05/update-to-when-wikipedia-renders-one-un.html so that my readers can get a better idea of how to deal with these sorts of disputes in a constructive and civil manner.IanThal (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. :) I'm happy if I was able to help. I hope that the article will be expanded neutrally at some point and please do let us know if you see additional problems with it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Ron Gatepain
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Moodriddengirl
Thanks for the guidance. I have now rewritten the article which I hope conforms to your style. I attach a couple of articles taken from the web which I hope will indicate that Ron meets your criteria for an academic. It was designed as a link from the 168th Pioneer Regiment as it was he who formed two of the Regiments Squadrons. He was also responsible for the introduction of Distance Learning into the Royal Logistic Corps. If this is acceptable I will then insert the appropriate links. Though I would appreciate any further comments.
Ron Gatepain – Writer and Lecturer
Ron Gatepain TD, BSc, MPhil, MEd, MBEng, FCIOB, FASI, MRICS, MCMI, MIfL, PGCE, LCG (b. 1947) is a Chartered Surveyor, Corporate Building Surveyor, Chartered Builder, Corporate Building Engineer and Architectural Historian.
Lecturing
Currently Ron is a visiting Lecturer at the Bishop Grosseteste University College, Lincoln, England on their Heritage Degree courses. Having in the past been a visiting lecturer for the Nottingham Trent University and Loughborough University and numerous colleges. He is a Director of Gates MacBain Associates a Construction Education and Training Company and carries out engagements as a guest speaker on cruise ships for P&O, Fred Olsen and Saga speaking on History and Architecture.
Business Experience
He was for a number of years Managing Director of a Property Development Company and was a director of a number of companies with interest in retail, manufacturing, services and the entertainment industry.
Military Service
He served with the Royal Marines between 1965 – 1972 with 45 Commando in Aden, 41 Commando in the UK and Norway and on the Assault ship HMS Intrepid. He has also served with the Reserve forces in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment and the Territorial Army with the Royal Pioneer Corps and Royal Logistic Corps retiring in 2000 as the Commanding Officer of 168 Pioneer Regiment with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. He is now a member of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association Committee.
External Commitments
He is involved on the committees or with the delivery of training for the Chartered Institute of Building, Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers and the Association of Building Engineers.
Books
• Successful Property Development, RIA Publishing, 1995, IBSN 0 9525897 0 2
• Management for the Professions, RIA Publishing, 1996, ISBN0 9525897 1 0
External links
• www.gatepain.co.uk
• www.gatesmacbain.co.uk
831squad (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for putting some time into developing this in your own words. :) I've had to remove some of the text from your sourcing area above because even on article talk pages we can't copy text from other pages for copyright concerns. That doesn't mean that I can't evaluate them, though, especially as the links are there.
I need to note first that though I am an administrator on Wikipedia, there is no single person who can tell you that text is acceptable. I can advise you on developing the article to what I would be an acceptable standard, but I can't ensure that other editors would not have problems that might lead to its being proposed for one of the deletion processes. Content and the suitability of biographical topics is guided by specific guidelines, but community consensus is used to determine whether or not a specific article "fits".
Okay, that out of the way: This link seems like an excellent source, based on what I can see of it. This one, from the cruise line, is likely to be perceived as promotional, since the cruise line is not independent of the subject in that it benefits if its lecturers are perceived as notable. Any chance you can find more like the first? I tried doing a google search on "Ronald Gatepain", but all I came up with was cruise-related hits. "Ron Gatepain" got a few more, but I didn't see anything else that I could propose. More independent sources may be necessary to verify notability. Your sources do not necessarily need to be online. If you have access to newspaper or magazine articles, journal profiles, you can incorporate those as well. The first thing is to indicate that your subject is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. The second thing is to prove it, which we typically do by proving that other notable sources are talking about him.
So, sources in hand, you should really state that your subject is important and why in your opening sentence. What you have right now may read a bit more like a resume than a typical encyclopedia entry: "Ron Gatepain TD, BSc, MPhil, MEd, MBEng, FCIOB, FASI, MRICS, MCMI, MIfL, PGCE, LCG (b. 1947) is a Chartered Surveyor, Corporate Building Surveyor, Chartered Builder, Corporate Building Engineer and Architectural Historian." If it were my article, I would start off with, "Ronald Gatepain is a renowned architectural historian.<ref>citation</ref> A chartered surveyor, corporate building surveyor, chartered builder and corporate building engineer, Gatepain is a prominent lecturer and guest speaker...." You want to front and center the facts that make this gentleman encyclopedic. Other material is background and would probably go into a sub-section. --Moonriddengirl(talk)02:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Recalling deleted pages
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I read where you can copy deleted pages and move them to my userpage. I am asking if you could do this for the following three articles:
Hi. The contents of those articles now sit at User:PGPirate/Deleted. I've put them all on one userpage for convenience. You can easily see where the pages originally ended by looking for the neutralized categories. Since we don't use categories in userspace, I just dropped a "tl" in front of it to keep it from expanding without erasing it. Hope this helps! --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ron Gatepain
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi -
Thanks for the tip. I have been doing speedy deletes for ages and you are the first person to give me this tip of putting it on the users page. I will do this in future. Also thanks for the notenglish pointer as I looked for something like this and couldn't find it (did he look long enough you say....!!)BustOut (talk)
Latest comment: 16 years ago18 comments3 people in discussion
Hey I was hoping you could help sort out the situation between myself (Grant.Alpaugh (talk·contribs)), Kingjeff (talk·contribs), and Otav347 (talk·contribs) about the 2008 Major League Soccer season article, and all of the templates on that article, namely Template:2008 MLS standings - Eastern, Template:2008 MLS standings - Western, Template:2008 MLS standings - Overall, and Template:2008 MLS Scores, as well as 2008 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup qualification. The disagreement stems from the issue regarding the format of games as Home-Away or Away-Home and standings as W-D-L or W-L-T. I agree the disagreement is small, but it has caused quite the controversy. The discussion is mostly at Talk:2008 Major League Soccer season and Talk:2008 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup qualification, though the Open Cup conversation has been almost entirely copied to the MLS article's talk page. The discussion has also spilled over into our talk pages as well. While it would be nice if you could weigh in on the issue of the debate, I would mostly like your opinion about the tone of the discussion, mostly between myself and Kingjeff, as I believe many of his comments to constitute violations of WP:GOODFAITH and/or WP:NPA. At the beginning of the discussion Otav347 began to take the discussion down a personal tone, I called him on it, and he promptly apologized and has endeavored to keep things civil as much as possible from there on. Kingjeff, on the other hand, has made this debate much more personal, resulting, I believe from an edit to UEFA Champions League 2007-08 on April 15th or 16th in which he shrunk certain names of teams in the competition to a smaller font, which I reverted as vandalism, but he later explained was because on some resolutions the names were appearing in two lines, causing the bracket to deform. He made a comment on the talk page of another user I had been collaborating with at the time (PeeJay2K3 (talk·contribs)), I referred to it in my conversation with PeeJay, and Kingjeff accused me of following him around the WP. It was at this point that he collaborated with US - Jimmy Slade (talk·contribs) during his fit of vandalism to my userpages. I didn't think it was as big a deal then, but now almost a month later, he's begun attacking me again, making me out to be a coward on my talk page, accusing me of trying to own articles when I explicitly did the opposite, and generally defaming my character. I've repeatedly asked him to change the tone of his remarks and refrain from making not-so-thinly-veiled personal attacks. Most frivilously, he's brought allegations of sockpuppetry against me and everyone that voted along with me because my roommate reverted the templates in question at my request, similar to his request that Otav continue the edit war because he would be unable to do so for 22 more hours. I've been upfront about the fact that my roommate uses the same IP as I do as we're in an apartment and hooked up to the same connection. He didn't create an account, but he didn't need to to make the edit. He acted in good faith, as did I. I realize I've thrown a mountain of stuff at you, so if it takes you a day or two to respond, that's fine, but I would appreciate a response, especially as you dealt so well with the US - Jimmy Slade issue before. Thanks again, and have a great day. -- Grant.Alpaugh06:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. It certainly is a lot, but I'll be happy to help if I can. It's morning time in my part of the world. Since it seems complex, I'll set aside some time to look through it this afternoon. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've been reading through it all, and it is pretty messy. In terms of the content dispute, I'm afraid that I am absolutely the wrong person to chime in. I had no idea what W-D-L or W-L-T meant, and while I've figured it out, I think you'd probably be better off getting participation from people who already know such things and what conventions are used where. While I am an administrator, this gives my opinion on ordinary content disputes no extra weight, and my inexperience in the topic should reasonably give me somewhat less. If your efforts to reach consensus on the subject have stalemated, I believe you might want to consider neutrally requesting additional feedback at a relevant policy or (another) wikiproject. Be sure your request is neutral, though, to avoid giving the appearance of canvassing. Alternatively, you might consider "requests for comment", which may or may not invite additional input.
The sockpuppet case is almost certainly going to dissolve in regards to all but the IP address. The contribution history of the editors suggests no connection. You indicate that the IP is your roommate and that the reversion was done at your request. This may be a problem. Please see the definition of "meatpuppet", if you haven't read it before. You should not ask someone else to make edits that might seem designed to help you circumvent WP:3RR. (Not even if the other guy has done it, too.) Even if your roommate made those reverts without your request, the action would be problematic. In the section after that, "Roommates and sharing an IP address", people with the same IP are advised to act as though they are one individual when editing the same article. Given this edit, made at 00:08, 13 May 2008, it's obvious that you knew that further reversion of your own was a bad idea. I suspect, since your roommate made the first of his reversions at 00:14, 13 May 2008, that you were unaware of the nuances here and that his edits might be counted as a 4th revert against you. I do not know how those admins who address checkuser & sockpuppetry cases typically handle cases of what seem to be unintended meatpuppetry. I see that The Rambling Man has advised you to just wait that one out, but I'm not sure if he was aware that you are connected to the IP. You may want to ask his further feedback in light of that. If I were the editor in your situation, I would be inclined to explain what happened at the sockpuppetry and check user pages and make clear that I now understand that this is not recommended.
The question of civility here is by far the most challenging for me to address. There have definitely been instances of incivility, and the tone of your interactions remains hostile. I take it that the incident you referenced above, here, was the start of the personal antagonism between you. That was unfortunate. The vandalism guideline offers specific examples of what vandalism is and is not. Without evidence of bad faith, edits should not be presumed to be vandalism, as this is against WP:CIVIL in itself. This is why the first level of the vandalism warnings, {{uw-vand1}}, does not explicitly use the term. It is not used until evidence appears to confirm that edits were made maliciously.
Probably most editors who have addressed vandalism on recent change patrol have encountered instances where they've inadvertently labeled good faith edits as vandalism. On those instances where it happens, it's good to express the reason for your assumption, as you did here, but probably also helpful to apologize for not assuming good faith. It seems that this label must have made the other editor angry, and I fear that this and this only exacerbated that situation. It is more difficult to address incivility when it seems to have existed on both sides, even if you are interested in changing the tone of your interactions now, and so it may require more patience.
I have asked the user to please avoid personal comments about you as the dispute is resolved and the sock puppet allegations investigated. In spite of the nature of your dispute, I hope that he will respect that request. Given the factors here of your history with this editor, I would recommend waiting to take further action until the sock puppet case resolves. At that point, only if the problem persists, it might be good to seek input from neutral editors at "Wikiquette Alerts", which may resolve the situation short of |RCU. Meanwhile, again, you may wish to seek wider community input on the disputed issue, perhaps WP:RFC.
He says one thing then does a 180 when it suits him. I'm not the only one who has seen this. As far as the sock puppet case goes, the main issue is with the IP Address. The IP Address has only 4 edits in which all 4 were reverts which just happens to agree with Grant. As far as the other users are concerned, it's more of suspicion of Grant. I have had 2 users that have said that the IP Address reporting is ligitimate. Kingjeff (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The other issue with Grant
This issue is regarding Template:2008 MLS standings - Eastern, Template:2008 MLS standings - Western and Template:2008 MLS standings - Overall. I feel that it should be under the format of W-L-T should stand until the issue is resolved because Wikipedia:How to edit a page says "...Before engaging in a major edit, a user should consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page..." and "A major edit should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is major (not minor), even if the edit is a single word." We are onl discussing it now, after the fact. Grant feels that W-D-L should stand until the issue is solved. Kingjeff (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't change the meaning of the article. This is clearly an issue of style, rather than stubstance. It went uncontested for more than a month. In my view that constitutes an effective status quo. If someone had contested the change when I made it, then fine, but that's not what happened. During a content dispute, the article should remain as is, unless some overriding issue is in play like WP:BLP or similar. No issue exists in this case, so until consensus is reached, it stays as is. -- Grant.Alpaugh02:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
But it didn't change the meaning of the article, which is what your above quotes say. I made a stylistic change, nobody said woop, and it stayed that way for a month when you started to contest it. Since it was stable for a month as W-D-L, I don't see how we can change it without a consensus to do so. -- Grant.Alpaugh02:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Since this is a new sub-thread and now involves several people, I'll respond here. Kingjeff, I would like to point out that while people should consider and it is encouraged, it isn't required as per the policy at WP:Consensus. The initial change is not so much the problem at this point, it's that discussion has broken down and you (plural) seem to be either engaged in or on the verge of an edit war. :/ I noted that you, Kingjeff, have already brought up the matter for wider participation at the proper wikiproject, which is what I would have suggested doing. It seems that no clear consensus has emerged from that, though.
I understand that the big debate at this point is what version the page should be in as the dispute is settled. Ordinarily, it is the burden of the person who wants to change the status quo to provide evidence that consensus is for the change. The problem here is that neither of you can agree on which is the status quo. Kingjeff feels that the statusquo is what existed prior to the change a few months back. Grant feels that as the change was uncontested, it is the new status quo. The problem is that both of your perspectives could be perceived as correct by Wikipedia process. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle talks about the fact that once a version is challenged, there is no consensus version.
I personally think that the best thing that you can do is focus less on which version is up on the page for now and instead seek wider feedback to permanently resolve the issue by inviting another related project or perhaps by initiating an WP:RFC. These are not always quick avenues for getting feedback, but I hope that on a sport's related topic you might find people more responsive. I've most often seen them used on more heated political topics, which people tend to shy away from as "no win" scenarios. --Moonriddengirl(talk)02:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to add that this probably it for me for now. It's nighttime in my part of the world, and I have to shut down. I'm already watching my typo count rise and my clarity fall! The point here is finding consensus—not necessarily something you like, but something you both can live with. In the case of the for-now version, there are many ways you could do this, including something as simple as agreeing to launch an Rfc and using the version selected by the first responder. This is, after all, a temporary situation until resolution can be achieved. If the pages continue to be embattled, you may also consider requesting page protection, at which point—if the request is granted—the matter will be arbitrarily settled, as the responding administrator will freeze the pages in whatever version they exist at that moment anyway. --Moonriddengirl(talk)03:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of Socking...
Can you take a look into this, this, this, and this for me? I'm pretty sure this is a direct attempt to manipulate polling and falsify consensus, which I never had my roommate do. All he did was keep the site from being changed before consensus was reached. This qualifies as sockpuppetry, and the IP account should be banned, and Kingjeff should be warned, no? It also strikes me as quite silly since the issue has already been resolved in his favor. -- Grant.Alpaugh20:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure there's a connection. The IP seems to be a shared IP account that has a history of editing that goes back to 2006 (see [1]). At a glance, I don't see any commonality in editing, and this IP is registered to a bank in Ohio. I can't tell where Kingjeff was from, but his spelling suggests the UK and his wikiproject involvement would seem to support that. Obviously, what happened here is that somebody copied the top name in the list and built a new identity and timestamp around it. Do you have reason to connect this with Kingjeff other than the fact that he had supported one outcome? As you say, it would have been a quite silly thing to do, given that the issue had already been resolved in his favor.
A checkuser would need to be done to determine that this is Kingjeff and would only be effective if he had logged in from that shared computer. The IP might be blocked for a brief time if there were a match, but IPs are not "banned" per se. Brief blocks are generally regarded as better, since IP blocks can hurt many individual. Kingjeff would possibly be warned or blocked for a short time, but he claims he's left Wikipedia anyway, User:Kingjeff. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this for me. It just struck me as fishy, that's all. I didn't want to create a federal case out of it, which is why I brought it to you and another admin to look into before taking the next step. I appreciate the attention. Nice work as always. -- Grant.Alpaugh01:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Happy if I can help. :) I do have access to some information you may not, like some info on the IP. Anyway, I can't be sure it's not him, but without further development would probably let it go. It could be nothing more than an IP editor who wanted to "vote" under his own name but didn't know how. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Ron Gatepain 2
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Moonriddengirl, I have had another go at the article on Ron Gatepain and would appreciate your comments as to weather it is now okay to submit.
Ron Gatepain – Writer and Lecturer
Ron Gatepain is a renowned architectural historian [1] [2] and construction educationalist. A Chartered Surveyor, Corporate Building Surveyor, Chartered Builder and Corporate Building Engineer, he is a visiting lecturer at the Bishop Grosseteste University College, Lincoln, England in Heritage Studies and has delivered courses as a visiting lecturer at the Nottingham Trent University and Loughborough University [3] [4] and numerous colleges and private training companies throughout the world [5]. He has also written and developed distance learning and webbed based training material for educational institutions and the British Army [6]. He appears on cruise ships as a guest speaker and subject expert in History and Architecture delivering talks on famous building of the world [7] [8].
Involved with numerous committees and with the setting of professional standards with regard to the planning and delivery of training for the Chartered Institute of Building, Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers and the Association of Building Engineers [9][10].
Gatepain is a director of Gates MacBain Associates, a Construction Education and Training Company providing consultancy, education and training for the construction industry worldwide [11].
Military Service
Ron Gatepain served with the Royal Marines between 1965 – 1972 with 45 Commando in Aden, 41 Commando in the UK and Norway and on the Assault ship HMS Intrepid. He has also served with the Reserve forces in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment and the Territorial Army with the Royal Pioneer Corps and Royal Logistic Corps retiring as the Commanding Officer of 168 Pioneer Regiment in 2000 with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel [12]. He is currently a committee member of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association.
Well, this is definitely better. I wish I could tell you clearly that it would pass muster, but I'm afraid I cannot certainly say. The article more clearly indicates what makes him notable, but most of the references still come from sites that have something to gain by promoting Mr. Gatepain. (This is promoting an event, this is promoting a seminar, this and this are promoting cruises. Wikipedia:Notability (academics), a notability guideline that may be useful here as Mr. Gatepain is a lecturer and historian, indicates as point #1 of possible notability criteria "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources." Sources that serve to benefit by promotion of Mr. Gatepain would not likely be considered independent. The Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph remains your best source and so far the only one that I can confidently say supports notability.
Hmm. Let me try from a different angle. It's indicated in the bio that Mr. Gatepain has authored two books. Are there reviews of these books in any newspapers, magazines or industry journals that you know of?
One of the major problems you're running up against with this is that even if Mr. Gatepain is notable enough for inclusion by Wikipedia's standards, he may be challenged for inclusion. As that notability guideline says, "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability." If I were you, I would try to find a few more disinterested sources covering Mr. Gatepain before attempting to secure an article.
I am one of the regular volunteers at "the drawing board", which is where contributors may go to get feedback on article ideas before creating them, but if you'd like to also bring this up there, I will leave your question for one of the other volunteers to respond to. It's possible that one of the other regulars there can give you some different ideas for establishing and verifying notability here. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for taking the time out to respond to my message. Am glad that the delete tag has now been removed and article restored. Am trying to collect more material before posting it on wiki at which point your help may be needed. Thanks again for the very helpful points on how to seek help with editing. Take care Bonhomie1 (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks Moonriddengirl, I appreciate your response and suggestions and am quite happy relying on your opinion. I will see what I can do re other sources. Regards 831squad 831squad (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Oh, yes, indeed, they are possible. :) I've had a few. Articles are often tagged far too soon for A1 or A3 concerns. :/ CSD policy recommends against deleting articles too soon if they appear to be incomplete, but particularly zealous new taggers don't always seem aware of that. Anyway, I'm happy if I was able to help prevent you having a bad day. I hope any reviewing admin would have done the same. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Vanquish Credit Repair Company Information
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Can you explain why these entries were allowed, any mine was deleted?
Each of the above entries offer some sort of advertisement about what these companies do, why can't I be granted the same consideration?
-Tom Shawgo
21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The basic reasons why some articles are allowed to remain while others are deleted are set out here. Primarily it boils down to the fact that Wikipedia is large, and sometimes problems are discovered in one article but not immediately detected in another. Sometimes there are additional factors to be considered that may make one article a candidate for deletion by one process and another not.
In terms of the articles you mention, I see that E-Loan has been tagged for promotional text; I'm really a bit surprised that it hasn't yet been addressed. It does have some neutrally presented information in it, however, and WP:CSD#G11 is for articles that would need to be completely rewritten to become encyclopedic. There are, of course, other considerations with some of those you list. Apple Inc. is a neutrally presented article with many references to verify notability and attribute claims. (Similarly, see this.)
If you would like to establish an article on this company, please read over the guideline on promotion and the notability guideline on companies. The rule of thumb there is noting whether the company has received significant or widespread coverage in secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the company (excluding company PR releases and information solely available on the company website—these sources may be used for additional information after notability has been established by secondary sources). All material must be attributable and presented neutrally.
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Moonriddengirl,
You are obsolutly right about me being a bit confused, im sorry to have wasted your time. Im trying to achieve something unique in music and i hadnt explained that a tall well in previous desription.
Now having read the criteria i am unsure if we do qualify. Im gonna tell you what we all about and see if you think we maybe are some sort of wierd sub section. if we are not then that is totally cool.
For ten years me a three school friends have worked hard at becoming an indiependant outfit that relies only its guile and own recource to record, tour, sell merchandise and raise money privatly (ie outside the normal of what bands usually aspire to do. IE get signed to a major, get an advance, go on a support tour and become famous. We have always wanted to do it differently. Noel Gallagher from Oasis was kind enough to let us use his large studio to make an album ourselves (he hasnt let any band our size use it) and we were asked by various big bands and big names to come play on tour etc with them.
We put together a new bizz model for how to achieve all the goals Majors do but with a much more favourable leaning towards the artist. It worked and we got backing to set up and more importantly have total artistic control over WE MAKE THINGS records. We are the guini pigs in a sense i guess but we do intend to further sign other bands etc.
We have had loads of great press and solid radio since releasing our 1st Single here in UK and altho it didnt chart (because we simply dont have the mustle behind us) the second single looks good and the album set for release in June has already got an offer from one of the biggest labels in Japan. we are set to do three main festivals this year Glastonbury, Bestival and Secret Garden party.
As i said before i totally realise why putting us in might open the flood gates but with XFM playlists and major support tours both iminent and already under our belts i thought i would at least write this opus for your perusal.
Hi. No time wasted. :) By confirming to me that the {{hangon}} template was unclear, you showed me that I needed to try to fix it. You're not the only person to have ever placed the "hangon" tag on your talk page. That's our mistake, not yours. (I presume that's what you're talking about. The article had already been deleted by another administrator when I responded to your "hangon", so the article itself took no time at all. My response to your note certainly wasn't a waste of time; I'm happy to help if I can. Anyway....)
In terms of notability, the exciting words there are "loads of great press". If that's the case, then your band meets the guidelines under criterion #1: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." (You should probably re-read WP:MUSIC to see the footnoted exclusions there.) Can you assemble enough examples of that to demonstrate that you meet that criterion? As I mentioned on your talk page, college newspapers would probably not be helpful here, but city newspapers would help. Something to consider is depth and breadth of coverage. Listings of playdates would not help, but reviews would—especially if you have them from different regions you've toured. (You might qualify under criterion #11, too, "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." It can be hard to demonstrate that one, though.) Whether or not the sources you have meet the depth and breadth standards can be a little difficult to determine. Sometimes if a band is borderline, their article will wind up in a deletion debate for other Wikipedians to consider whether or not the coverage qualifies. Again, more is better. More from different places is better still. :)
There is a problem, though, with your writing the article yourself. Our conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages this, since it can be hard for those involved with ventures to write neutrally and to avoid "original research", that is, information you may know to be true but not be able to prove. It's recommended that you instead propose the article at "requested articles" or seek assistance at the talk page of a related article or WikiProject. Neither of these are necessarily fast processes, but if you have solid sources that will definitely help. The quickest way to proceed there is probably to write the article in user space (if you choose to do that and have trouble figuring out how, please feel free to let me know, and I'll be hapyp to help). Once the article is written and sourced, it will be much easier to ask someone from, say, WikiProject Musicians to have a look at it to make sure it's okay. If they agree that it is and that there's no conflict, it can then be moved to article space.
Whether your band currently meets notability guidelines or not, it sounds from what you say as though it's about to. Congratulations to you, and I'm glad that your integrity is paying off. :) If you decide that you don't meet guidelines at the moment, more than likely the conflict will not matter for long. Music fans tend to be enthusiastic participants at Wikipedia, and I suspect that somebody will create the article for you. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks so much for this. i think im gonna leave it to someone else and your words are lovely. maybe you come catch a show sometime. biggest best Wemakethings (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"Brooke shields herself from the brutal reality that is her life by finding solace in meaningless material goods and the never-ending pursuit of more and more wealth. But, little does she know, all the beachside condominiums and all-night free-for-all's cannot ease the ever-growing pain she feels at the end of each pointless and purposeless day, a pain that will never be satisfied by her decadence, a pain that will remain until the day she dies."[2] --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Where's the source for the award? This user has been consistently adding misinformation to articles, so I don't trust his statement that he won an award. Where he does add references, they don't say what he says they do, especially re people's ethnic backgrounds. Harry the Dog WOOF15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It's at IMDb. But even if it weren't, unless it is a blatant hoax, it is not a candidate for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is for clear cases only. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that IMDb is not a reliable source. Won't take it to AfD as you and another editor think it should stay if it can be improved, and that's OK by me. Harry the Dog WOOF15:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AllKillerNoFiller.jpg}
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for uploading Image:AllKillerNoFiller.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
General appeal: I've asked at media copyright questions for feedback, but haven't received any yet. If any drive-bys should happen to be able to figure out what about this one is confusing the bot, I'd be grateful for the assist. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
I appear to have a fairly tenuous grasp on what qualifies as CSD A7. Do you have any advice of how to determine whether someone or something is notable? If you want to see what I've been doing, you can look at my patrol log. J.delanoygabsadds15:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. :) I've answered the one below since this is a bit more involved. I'm delving in. I'll get back with you as soon as I can. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Just adding that I am looking through your contribs and forming a reply, but my internet activity is blipping in and out. I don't think it'll take much longer, unless I have to keep rebooting my modem! --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. I am asking you to do me a favor (i.e. help me). If I was angry at you for taking a while using your time to help me, that would be unbelievably selfish almost beyond reason. J.delanoygabsadds17:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, here goes. I'm sure you already know some of this, but I'm trying to be thorough. :D
To escape speedy, an article does not need to prove notability or even necessarily assert notability as Wikipedia defines it. It only needs to include information that suggests that its subject could be notable. If an article suggests there is something unique or important about its subject, it's probably not an A7 candidate. Similarly, if deletion of an article on the subject ("schools" as the explicit example) is likely to be controversial, it's not an A7 candidate even if it doesn't suggest that it's important. Also, A7 only applies to people (individually or grouped, as in bands, clubs or companies) and web content. It does not apply to sub-categories of those, like books, software, albums, products, etc. There does seem to be a bit of a gray area around web content. Personally, I would apply it, say, to a youtube video even though I could not technically apply it to, say, a VCR tape. Is it fair that "Billy Hates Vampires is a youtube video made by Billy Sniggs, age 12, and Bobbi Jo Hardey, age 10" is speediable while "Billy Hates Vampires is a VCR video made by...." isnt? Probably not. There've been efforts to add products to WP:CSD#A7. If we can find good wording for it, I'm all for that, especially when it comes to non-notable products released by non-notable individuals. Makes no sense to me that even if the band is speedied, its garage tape needs to be PRODded or AfDed. But, currently, that's the way consensus goes on the issue.
I wasn't here when it was created, but as I understand it, A7 was devised to help deal with articles like "John Smith lives in Pomona", "My new band is super cool" and "Harold's Hardware is a store on East and Main in Podunkville." We get so much of this kind of stuff that it was determined that having it hang around for PROD or AfD was a waste of time & resources. The limitations were placed to help make sure that we don't get overzealous in deleting this kind of thing, since sometimes John Smith of Pomona could be very important. :) If his article says "John Smith is a famous architect from Pomona", it may not verify notability, but it does suggest that there might be enough there to warrant further investigation. If further investigation doesn't turn up anything, then a PROD or AfD may be appropriate. Typically I go PROD if I'm pretty sure that my investigation was conclusive. If I think somebody else may come up with more, I go AfD. (For example, I would not necessarily PROD an article of borderline notability on somebody from another country if I do not have access to good sources for that country. I'd either start by asking for feedback from the relevant wikiproject or, if pretty sure, list at AfD and notify the relevant wikiproject.)
Looking at some of your specifics, let's take the article on Paul M. English as an example. It claims he is the founder of a website that has apparently received significant attention. It's not unreasonable that he might have achieved notability in that capacity. He's probably not a good A7 candidate. I might be inclined to propose a merger of the bio to the website article, but I see there are one or two other possible assertions of significance there. I'd probably tag it for clean-up if I had encountered it. (I did just now, actually. As a general rule of thumb, I don't place more than three tags on an article. If it's a real mess, I will sometimes use {{articleissues}}.)
Looking at Cactus Jack (band), it is difficult to determine notability because the band is Serbian. It does suggest, though, that the band may be notable in the listing of five albums. Something like that probably warrants wider review.
Looking at Sayang dbsk malaysia, it seems that a number of people agreed with your assessment of the article as an A7 there. Can't say for sure why Iridescent decided to AfD it instead. If I had encountered that tagged A7, I would have agreed and deleted it.
You didn't ask about this, but I would like to make a point about WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A3. One common issue I see with new page patrollers (which, by the way, I used to be before I got the tools to work the other end) is a tendency to mark articles for deletion as "no context" or "no content" almost immediately after the page is created. I notice that you tagged Andrew Paquette that way a minute after its creation on May 18th. Please hold off with these tags until the creators have a little bit of a chance to add material. WP:CSD notes that creators sometimes work in stages, and we don't want to bite new content contributors by scaring the living daylights out of them a minute or two into their first efforts. They do tend to be puzzled and alarmed, sometimes offended, by deletion tags. I got a got a note from a creator about that very issue just a couple of days ago. I know that on new page patrol, you get into a routine, but it's a very good idea just to keep questionable pages of that sort open in a tab and pop back in on them a little later to see if development is ongoing.
You didn't ask about this, either, but I would like to suggest you re-read WP:CSD#G1. This is an often misapplied tag. You put it on the article Zott a few days ago, but G1 indicates that "This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes." It was deleted by WP:CSD#G3, which would have been the proper tag for hoaxes and fictional material, though this one turned out to actually be cruft of some kind. Evidently its up for merger now.
Anyway, I hope that this is helpful. I've actually noticed your recent tags and been impressed by them. You may be working out some of the finer points, but you seem pretty much on top of things as they go. :) I'm glad that you notify creators. That is so important for so many reasons (just to name two, it (a) helps creators figure out what happened to their articles and (b) helps creators figure out how not to create inappropriate articles in the future; I could name more), and yet so many new page patrollers neglect it.
My pleasure. :) I'm always glad to talk to somebody else who values the project. I give Wikipedia a lot of my time, and I approve of others who do, too. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick question, I tagged Benmatthews90 under G6, as it was obviously made by a new user who didn't under understand how userpages worked. What would you have tagged it as? (I mean, if you wouldn't just delete it... :P ) J.delanoygabsadds17:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I would usually move a page like that to userspace and then tag the redirect for deletion with WP:CSD#R2. Then I'd leave a note letting the creator know what I'd done at his talk page. (That's essential, I think, if you delete the redirect.) There's a template for that purpose, {{nn-userfy}}. I probably wouldn't have used that template on that specific page case, though, since it isn't exactly an autobiography. :) A personal note would be better in that case. I think given how little information it had the way you handled it is fine. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
J.delanoygabsadds has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Co-occurrence network article by newby Johnfravolda
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for guiding me in the world of wikipedia contribution.
I have attempted to strengthen the "co-occurrence network" page through the addition of references and links to web pages that employ the concept in presenting information.
There are some things that you may be able to advise me on that I realize now may further improve the discussion of this and related topics on Wikipedia.
The topic of "co-occurrence networks" can be considered a subtopic of "Literature Networks". Another subtopic under this heading would be "co-citation networks". Since both co-occurrence and co-citation networks are very similar concepts, they are probably best discussed together under the umbrella of literature networks.
So my question then is: is it possible to get the terms "literature network", "co-occurrence network" and "co-citation network" all to point to the same page?
I'm happy to help if I can, although you are definitely working out of my field. :) When we want to get terms pointing to specific pages, we create "redirect" page. You start them the same as any article, but their contents consist of:
#REDIRECT [[target page title]]
I'm not quite clear from the above if you're considering moving co-occurrence network to literature networks, although it sounds like you may be. Steps for that are at Help:Move. Let me know if you need assistance with it or if I can help in any other way. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi again! I have done the major changes I plan on the co-occurrence network page. In that regard, I was wondering when the "tag" might be removed ("This article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping."). Although I do plan to add figures and consolidate information about co-citation and literature networks in general, the page as it stands now has many references to primary work and describes a concept that helps support other wikipedia articles. Does it not merit the removal of the tag now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfravolda (talk • contribs) 18:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. The tag was placed there as a convenience for you to keep others from deleting the article before you had reached the point where it was ready to stand. I'll go ahead and remove it, but for future reference when that tag is there to represent your labor, you're free to remove it any time. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. There was a deletion debate about Danny Welbeck at which it was decided that the individual does not yet meet notability guidelines. You can see that debate here. I deleted the version of the article created at Danny Welbeck on 18 May as a recreation of an article that had been deleted following a deletion discussion. In order to start an article deleted following a deletion discussion, the new version must address the concerns that led to deletion in the first place. I also noted that in that version, the language was promotional, which violates our neutrality guidelines. Since that time, I see that you have again created the article at Danny welbeck. It was deleted on May 20 by User:Number 57 for the same reason. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
is a translation still a copyright violation?
Latest comment: 16 years ago39 comments3 people in discussion
Question
While I was writing this, NawlinWiki deleted the page :P Anyways..... This article even sayssaid that its source iswas this webpage, which is written in Chinese. I don't know a single word in Chinese, so I translated the page using Google Translator. The translated version, while obviously somewhat clunky, easily provesproved that the page iswas a direct translation (and copy/paste). Should I taghave tagged the page as a copyright violation? J.delanoygabsadds15:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Back to question 1. That's a tricky one in terms of Wiki policy, as I don't know that it's clearly spelled out anywhere. In terms of US law, a translation is considered a derivative work, and only the original copyright holder has the right to make derivative works. It's sort of indirectly addressed at Wikipedia:Translation. I've scanned the help archives to see if this has been addressed, and I don't see that it has. If I encountered this myself, I would replace the content with {{subst:copyvio | url=insert URL here}}. When I placed it on "today's section" of the copyright problem page, as the template instructs, I would note the special circumstances. Then I'd head over to Wikipedia talk:Translation and ask there, as those volunteers should be up on the Wiki approach to such things. If I didn't get an answer, I would next hit up Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, a translation is still a copyright violation. Similarly, if you take some copyrighted English text and change the words so that it's using different English words but still has essentially the same sentences saying the same things, I think it's still a copyright violation. It has to be rewritten to have a different structure. That's just my opinion; I'm not a copyright expert. :-) Coppertwig (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Are derivative works necessarily copyright violations if the original work would be a copyright violation? I don't know much about the definition of "derivative work". If you summarize something, is that a derivative work? But it should be acceptable on Wikipedia – that's what we do, we summarize things. :-) Coppertwig (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Offer
Also, to change the subject completely, I was looking through your "frequently used templates" page and I saw that you had a couple of paragraphs that you obviously copy/paste to user talk pages. Would you like me to make them into subpages that you can subst? I have a few pages myself, and I think that my subst-ing is pretty good, good enough that you wouldn't be able to tell that I subst-ed. Here is an example: I produced this by typing {{subst:User:J.delanoy/vandals|++}}
Hello Moonriddengirl.
I noticed that you revert a good amount of vandalism. Thank you for helping keep Wikipedia the best encyclopedia in the world!
However, I have noticed that you do not always leave warnings on the vandals talk pages. You should always leave an appropriate warning after reverting vandalism. (The full list of talk page warnings may be found here, along with some suggestions and guidelines for using them.)
Be sure to leave the correct level of warning, and if the vandal has been warned four times recently, (Check the vandal's talk page history. Some vandals remove warnings from their talk pages.) report the vandal by going to this page and following the instructions.
Thank you again, and may the vandals fail... J.delanoygabsadds15:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I'm working on your original question, but will interrupt to answer this one. :) I do have a number of "personalized" templates. A user named ArielGold taught me how to make basic textual ones. Not very techie, so they aren't very complicated. :D If you're good with that kind of thing and are volunteering to help, what I really need is to figure out why this one only sometimes works. It doesn't work with every URL, and I don't know why. It didn't work on this page, for instance, and so I had to go back in and add it manually. Do you have any clue about that? --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. I tested it in the sandbox with a Wikipedia page that does not exist and a webpage that most assuredly does not exist :). (at least, not now.......must...resist...typing..."free domain hosting"...in...Google.....) It worked fine. The only thing I can think of is, are you sure you typed "http://" into the second parameter? Because, when I previewed it before saving, it wouldn't work without it. (The documentation said it wouldn't work, so, of course I tried it.....) J.delanoygabsadds15:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Pretty sure. I tested it again with that same page in my sandbox and got the same result. Before substituting it in, I did a "nowiki" version above which I cut and pasted. That shows exactly what I put into the template parameters. I can't rule out user error, since it's almost always my user error when I run into these malfunctions, but I'm not sure what the user error might be. :) (The documentation was written by Ariel, who coded that one for me. She's been offwiki for a long time, and she couldn't figure that one out, either.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I was off doing "work" work. :D For future reference, no, I don't mind. If you can help me figure that out, I'd appreciate it. I've been living with it sometimes working but not always since Ariel first coded it for me. If you can't figure out, that's okay, too; I appreciate your trying. :) I've been thinking lately that I needed to find somebody who knows stuff to help out with it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, MoonG. This might help with that url problem. Note here where it says something about a "url glitch". I don't fully understand, but I think it means that if you put in a url as an unnamed parameter, i.e. if you use a template like this {{templatename|param1}} then some url's with special characters won't work, but if you use it like this {{templatename|url=param1}} then it will work; alternatively you can do it like this {{templatename|1=param1}} which means the same as putting in an unnamed parameter as the first parameter, but I think will work with the url. You can try it and see. I hope this helps. Happy-melon probably understands this better than I do. :-) Coppertwig (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL! You understand it better than I do. You seem to be saying that if the template is coded to have "url=http://blahblah" then it might work. Or, if the template is coded to have "1=http://blahblah" then it might work. But if I just drop in the URL it might not because of special characters? --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, maybe I can modify the CSD G12 boilerplate template. You can still delete that page, but I'm going to try this out. J.delanoygabsadds17:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I'm saying, though I'm not sure whether that's correct or not – you'd have to try it. I'm on a different computer where I can only get one window and stuff and besides I don't really have time to edit right now or I would try it for you. But to use the 1= you don't have to recode the template: just put in "1=" (or "2=" for the second parameter etc.) when using the template. In other words, "1=" defines the first parameter in the same way that putting in a first unnamed parameter defines it. Good luck! :-) Coppertwig (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll wait and see how things work out for J.delanoy, who is obviously much more savvy at this than I am. :D If whatever he's trying doesn't work, I'll try to implement your suggestion. I can always restore the half-working version I have now if I mess it up. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think of it, it might be better to move it to my subpage (all credit to you, of course), since I know of at least one other admin who uses it. Would you mind if I put it in that spot? --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Third note: actually, maybe you could just copy it into that spot and overwrite the existing contents, if you don't mind my hosting it. And now I'll shut up and wait for you to reply. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL. Once I noticed it was your sandbox, I thought copy might work better. :) I won't delete your sandbox, no fear, but if I do, at least I can also restore it. Thanks for your help! --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, maybe you don't need to know this now that J.delanoy has found a solution for you, but I figured out what the problem is: it's when there's an equals sign in the url. You see, {{templatename|pagename|beginningending}} will assign "pagename" as the value of parameter "1" and "beginningending" as the value of parameter "2". {{templatename|1=pagename|2=beginningending}} will do exactly the same. But suppose your url is "beginning=ending". Then you try {{templatename|pagename|beginning=ending}} but what this does it is assigns the value "ending" to the parameter "beginning", and doesn't assign anything to parameter "2". You can easily solve this by putting "2=" just before the url: {{templatename|pagename|2=beginning=ending}}. Then it will assign "beginning=ending" to parameter "2". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah! Clever. :) I'll go with the volunteered efforts of J.delanoy, but if I need to template something with a URL again, I'll try to remember this issue. I almost wrote "remember this issue" but had to stop myself with a self-deprecating laugh. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I see. I try to remember to always say "try to remember" rather than "remember": if one doesn't remember that, one is really in trouble!!! By the way, I think I knew the thing about the equals signs a few weeks ago but had to figure it out from scratch again as if I'd never known it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
That is not the only problem, when I tried using Cyrillic characters without using the {{urlencode: }} parameter, it would not work correctly. In addition, when I tried using just one variable with the URL encode, it would not parse the "http://www" correctly, so I had to do it the way I did. There is probably a way to do it easier, but I don't know how. J.delanoygabsadds13:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
←Actually, I just tried linking to a page with an equals sign in it, and the template doesn't work right. Back to the drawing board... J.delanoygabsadds13:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I lied, it doeswork. (So I am a genius!) Just put the whole address under the "url=" part unless it has Cyrillic or Greek or Chinese or whatever weird characters in the address. (Actually, since I assume you'll be just copy/pasting from your browser's address bar, you'l probably rarely, if ever, use the "characters" parameter, since all the weird character formatting will be done in the address bar when you go to the page you wanted.) J.delanoygabsadds13:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, go you, with your genius self! :D You're quite correct that copy/paste is my technique. Thank you again for helping out here. I am much grateful. :) Feel free to pop by my user talk page with questions and/or offers at any time. ;) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, man, I just saw this video. I haven't laughed so hard in a long time. Sorry if you're doing something that actually matters, but I just had to tell someone. (No, wait this is an offer for you to laugh your ... off)J.delanoygabsadds14:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
No problem at all. :) I've been meaning to try to learn more about intricate template syntax, but I never had a reason to before. Thanks for letting me experiment with your template! :D J.delanoygabsadds19:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said at your userpage, thank you. :) I've got a little collection of self templates that I use, but that one is probably the most important. It is a requirement when deleting G12 candidates that users be told about copyright policy. When speedy taggers do not place the warning templates on user pages, the admin has to let them know. The official warning presumes the article has not yet been deleted, which seems inaccurate and a bit odd. That template is a big help to me. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what to make of it. I'm not heartened by her ignoring my post to her talk page and blanking the page. It almost feels like a real but non notable subject that she's trying to build a set of articles about. Could not find anything on Google that would allow me to verify any of it. In fact, the internal links don't hold up at all, either. It looks to me like vandalism/hoax. I went ahead and speedy tagged the userpage feeling it was an attempt to evade a speedy deletion, but that was probably stretching CSD beyond the limit. The connection between the names "Cassidy" and "Kassandra Livingston" seems more than coincidental. I think we can afford to wait a while to see if Verifiability develops or if MFD is the answer. Cheers, 22:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
About the teen commandments (Play)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry for any inconvienience, but I can't get any pictures, I am only 12, It is a book/ play we are doing at school, sorry about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperJ1 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. :) There's no reason to be sorry about a desire to share information about your school play on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, though, it may not meet our notability guidelines for inclusion. We try to be inclusive, but we also hope to keep content to what could be relevant to a great many people. If you don't disagree that the article should be deleted, there's no need for you to do anything; the proposed deletion process will go through and likely result in the article being deleted. If you do disagree, we should remove the deletion template and talk about the kinds of sources that Wikipedia looks for in making sure that new articles have widespread notability. Good luck with the play! --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, atcually it is from a book, that is what I meant. We read it, then using the script, we did activities.
Moonriddengirl!
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, Cassidy. Thank you for coming over to discuss this. The issue here isn't that you must not ignore my messages, but that we do need to be sure that you're working within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. :) Wikipedia is a volunteer-created encyclopedia. It is a serious project, and our goal is to create a valuable research resource. Wikipedia allows anyone to contribute, because we believe that everyone has something to offer. But we do need to make sure that everyone who contributes understands what we're trying to achieve and helps us work towards that.
One of the things that Wikipedia does not publish is "original thought". We do publish articles on actual television shows and sometimes their characters (not always though; we try to make sure that the characters are "notable" enough in the real world that our readers will want to read about them). In this case, it seems pretty clear that the TV show you're describing is not a real TV show, given that I can't find any information about it anywhere else on the web and it involves some people who are pretty busy right now because of their recent and ongoing involvement with American Idol. It sounds like a very creative idea, but unless you can prove that it's a real show, I'm afraid that Wikipedia is probably not a good place for it at all. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, P.S.: the note above about you was left here by an administrator called Dlohcierekim, who left you a note about an hour before I did. We have been trying to figure out what you might be doing with these articles and what should be done about your user page. User pages are meant to help Wikipedia's contributors work together to build the encyclopedia, and aren't really meant to be a host of unrelated content. You can read more about what user pages are for here. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Cassidy. I'm sorry, but that wouldn't be proof that such a show exists and that these people have been involved with it. There's no mention of it in Carly Smithson's IMDb profile, here. The only google results for "David Cook" and "Growing Up Cook" are to your Wikipedia pages, here. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
NOT A TV SHOW!!!
Its not a tv show, its a written series... if i can their fan mail addresses then i can tell them about the series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassidy011 (talk • contribs) May 22 2008
Thanks, I Wonder how to make the info boxes on the wiki fiction. send me the login details and i will move all of my stuff right away.
Cassidy011 (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Cassidy
primal therapy
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. Good to see you. :) I'll go take a look, although I actually know almost nothing about primal therapy and was only briefly involved in that article over BLP issues. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, how peculiar. It always perplexes me the way people jump straight to "conspiracy" when encountering disagreement. I guess WP:AGF is not part of the natural human condition. In any event, it makes me glad for my decision to stay away from articles I feel strongly about. I know that it's not impossible to get hot under the collar when somebody challenges you on an article that you don't naturally feel strongly about. I can only imagine how much more that's the case when you're already passionately involved and have strong opinions about the subject. That COI guideline = good stuff. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Back-Up.
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Moon, Can i have ONLY 1 favor.
can i please keep my userpage here on wikipedia, please?
Hi, Cassidy. This is not necessarily up to me. I'm only one administrator out of over 1,500, and there are many, many more people who contribute to Wikipedia who are not administrators who might also bring your userpage up for deletion debate. Are you having problems with Wiki Fiction? --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Well Yeah, one time my page came up broken and a dead link. i'll make sure my pages is NOT a hoax page, i promise on my dead body (sorry, i had to say that)
Cassidy011 (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Cassidy
The only way that you can make sure it isn't a hoax page is to make it clear that it isn't a sitcom, that it doesn't have any seasons, that it's never aired, and that those individuals are not involved. But that still won't take care of the userpage problem that Wikipedia isn't a webhost and that this page has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I wonder what the issue is with Wiki Fiction for you. I've just logged in under the account I created for you and transferred your new material to that page (here) without any problem.
I really can't make an exception here, Cassidy. It's not personal, but Wikipedia is funded by charitable donations, and we can't really justify permitting those funds to be used for other than what they are intended for. It's not a free webhost. Wikipedia does allow a little latitude for socialization and personalization of user space, but only as part of the process of building the encyclopedia. Your interest seems to be in this story. In terms of your userpage, it's not ultimately going to be up to me whether or not it is deleted. While false articles must be immediately cleaned out of article space, they are not immediately cleaned out of user space. But it would be wrong for me not to report an issue if I believe I encounter one. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
All right. I've done the best I can to preserve the information for you, though I'm afraid I can't help it if they don't use the same templates Wikipedia does. We'll bring your userpage up for discussion at material for deletion and see whether the community thinks an exception is warranted in your case. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, Cassidy. I've been working on the wording of this. I want to be sure that I have myself understood what you're doing so that the contributors to "material for deletion" can fairly assess the situation.
“
This userpage, which seems to be the sole focus of this editor aside from a series of mainspace articles (now deleted) created in conjunction with it, is inconsistent with userpage guidelines. It details an idea she has had and is not about an existing TV show. (See my talk page, a subsequent section on her page and then back to mine.) She really doesn’t want to lose this material, so I have created an account on her behalf at Wikia (she had some trouble doing so herself) and copied the material there. She’s not comfortable with their formatting and would like to be allowed to keep this page. I’d like to be welcoming and hospitable, but I have told her that I felt I had to bring this here for community evaluation.
”
Please let me know if I've understood what you're doing correctly (that this is your own idea). If not, I'll need to revise my wording. (Of course, if you decide you're comfortable with it at Wikia as it is, you also can simply blank it from your current userpage, and then there's no need to go to MfD.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank You!
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Moonriddengirl, I really need your help to stop this user User:Maurice45 from removing plot summaries, he just removes them for no reason. He thinks they are just fairy tales (when everyone knows that plot is not an episode synopsis). Can you please tell me how to stop this user from removing necessary info. I have also visted his talk page, where couple of other users have talked to him on the same issue, but this user says,"I will go over my edits and rewrite them all" I don't know when he is going to do that because so far he is busy removing (vandalizing) articles. Just to make sure, I have read some of these plots, and they are perfectly okay to meet wikipedia standards (not copy infringments, not personal views, not episode synopsis) and I don't know why he wants to rewrite them. So can you please help me solve this issue because plot summaries/concept is very important otherwise the article about the TV series is worthless. I hope you will help out! Please Please Please! Your wiki friend Jesse402, 20:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
for the time and trouble you took to assess my contributions at my RFA, and the positive feedback you left! I appreciate the trust that you and others have in me, and hope not to goof up too badly, too quickly. Thanks again.--Slp1 (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
This article is a bio of a non-notable person written in Spanish. I knew enough Spanish to give it a closer look. After viewing a computer-generated translation, I tagged it with db-bio. Was that the correct way to do that? J.delanoygabsadds03:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. :) I'd say it depends on how obvious it was. :) We've talked about a7, so you know the things to look for...some hint that this guy might actually be notable enough for an article. If it was blatantly non-notable, then tagging it is the right thing to do. I'm sure you know to be careful that some important nuance is not lost when you're using a computer-generated translator, as those things are notoriously wonky. :D If you're ever in doubt, you can drop a note at the Wikipedia:Pages needing translation entry that you suspect the article is non-notable and asking a translator to look over it with that in mind. I've done that in the past. I've even tracked down contributors who speak the language to ask them directly for feedback, as I did not too long ago with an Arabic language article submitted by a user who had submitted Arabic language attack pages in the past.
In this particular case, I note that the article was deleted as a copyvio, as it was evidently pasted from the individual's website. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, P.S. I went to place the copyright advisement tag on the creator's page as that was evidently forgotten and see that you didn't put the db notice on his page. Just a reminder that this is an important step if we want them to stop creating inappropriate pages. :) I wouldn't worry about it in this case, but please do try to keep a habit of it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
What happen there was someone else tagged the page with db-nonsense and notified the creator of that. Then they removed the speedy tag from the article and replaced it with a {{notenglish}} tag. I can read some Spanish, so I decided that the page was speediable and tagged as such, including a link to the computer translation so that the reviewing admin could read the page. Was that correct? Should I have replaced the notification on the article creator's talk page, since the article was not patent nonsense? J.delanoygabsadds13:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think that was correct. And yes, I would have replaced the speedy notice. I would not necessarily do so under ordinarily circumstances, but in this case the original speedy tagger had removed the tag anyway. Being told one's article is nonsense might seem a bit bitey. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info and the offer of the template. I appreciate any and all help of this sort: there are so many steps to think about, I find. There have been a few similar cases that were tagged for one thing and turned out to be clearcut copyvios, so I will go back and inform the other creators. I guess that means I need to figure out how to look at deleted edits, so it can learning experience too. Thanks very much again! --Slp1 (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. G12 is one of the more complex speedy situations and even for admins directions for handling things tend to be a bit spread out. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Albums - Hound Dog Taylor and the HouseRockers
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I notice that you participate in the Albums and Missing article projects. I'm quite new to creating new articles, and any advice/observations etc. would be very welcome. In particular, I'm uncertain how to load an image for the album cover, and how to deal with disambiguation/redirects (Hound Dog Taylor & The HouseRockers currently redirects to Hound Dog Taylor, so I imagine I need to do something about that). I'm aware that the background section needs expansion, particularly regarding the effect the album's success had on Taylor's career, and I'm looking for a source for this.
Hi, and welcome to the project! :) It looks like a fine start. To get the cover, you first download it to your computer from AMG or another source, presuming they have it. AMG's covers are sized perfectly for Wikipedia. Sometimes if you find it elsewhere, you will need to shrink it to make it small enough to fit fair use; I believe 300 dpi is about as large as we're supposed to go. I'd have to look to verify that, but from AMG it isn't an issue. After that, you Upload the cover, selectng "Album or single cover" as the licensing tag on the pull-down menu. You paste into the summary field{{subst:Album cover article rationale|Article Title|Brunton}}Image from [link AMG]. That will expand into the fair-use summary. You can see an example of it in action at Image:Juju Music (album).jpg.
Good like finding sources. I've found it a little frustrating digging up information on some of the jazz legends whose articles I've worked on. I find [book search] helpful sometimes. For example, I get 52 hits on "Hound Dog Taylor and the HouseRockers" there, but I haven't looked to see if they're actually relevant or usable.
As far as the existing redirect at Hound Dog Taylor & The HouseRockers, the handling of that depends on how the redirect was created. In some cases, you'll be able to "move" your title directly over an existing redirect. Help:Moving tells you more about when that applies. In many cases, it's a simple matter of tagging it with {{db-move|PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|REASON FOR MOVE}}. An administrator will come along and either delete the first page or go ahead and move the new one over it. In this particular case, though, I'd be happy to help out. :) If I happen to be actively contributing when you're ready to go live, let me know, and I'll delete the old page for you.
Again, welcome to the project; it's good to see somebody else working on that backlog. :) I'm glad you stopped by, and please do let me know if I've been unclear about any of this or if I can assist you in any other way. Cheers! --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I've got the cover image. I'll look into the rest later (and thanks for reminding me about Google Books - I keep forgetting to look there). Brunton (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I can see that you've deleted Slime Volleyball on the grounds that it was "Patent Nonsense" (on 15:34, 8 November 2007). I find that incredibly hard to understand. Could you please elaborate?
CygnusPius (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I've done some looking into your deleted contribution history, and I begin to see why you're perplexed, as you had contributed to an earlier incarnation of that article. It had been deleted on 01:07, 8 November 2007 by User:Stephen under WP:CSD#A7, with an indication that it was a website that didn't assert importance. The article that I deleted had only one contributor other than the CSD tagger, User:Mattkool13, subsequently indefinitely blocked for vandalism. --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Need Help (2)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Moonriddengirl, this is Survir. I need your help! You know there is an upcoming Indian television series called Waaris on Zee TV channel, but with the same title two other telvision series exist, one already aired on Zee TV channel in 1999. So I need your help in choosing/creating the correct title so I can create a page for this upcoming television series. (I already have used Waaris (Zee TV) for the old television drama-series. So what should I put for the new one. Besides that with the same title there will also be an another drama-series that will air on STAR Plus, one of the Indian channels. [Note:They all have different concept)! You can also take a look at the disambiguation page Waaris for help. This is just a minor question, I hope you will help. Thanx! your wiki friend Survir (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
As this gibberish is being picked up by Google and displayed amongst my relevant poetry pages, I would request that any reference such as the above to me or my work is deleted forthwith. --David Lewis Paget (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)David Lewis Paget
The gibberish to which Mr. Paget refers is the hard to understand, but normal process of Wikipedia. As a courtesy to the editor, I have blanked their user talk page. The user page shows in google searches but is only available from the google cache, over which we have no control. The newly blanked user talk page will become available only from the google cache upon the next google re-indexing of the English Wikipedia site. We have no control over the length of time that external sites retain information contributed to Wikipedia under GFDL. Franamax (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance here, Franamax. :) Google caching is outside of my experience, and I would not have known how to respond. Mr. Paget, I have also blanked the question above and my response to it as a courtesy to you. The user who asked the question will still be able to see my response by going into the history of the page, here, but it will not otherwise be visible. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Moonriddengirl. I do appreciate your help. --David Lewis Paget (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, rather troubling, a page has surfaced described on Google as - David Lewis Paget Comprehensive consumer drug information, including usage information, interaction precautions, side effects, and withdrawal or discontinuation effects.
medlibrary.org/medwiki/David_Lewis_Paget - 18k -
This would appear to indicate that I am a drug user, which I have never been. On clicki9ng onto the page, my name is prominent, but then it states that there is no such page. What is going on here? I'm most upset over this.--David Lewis Paget (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem here again is that contributions made to Wikipedia are licensed under GFDL. That means they can be reused by others, for any purpose whatsoever, as long as they are attributed to Wikipedia, thence to the original author. There are literally dozens of other websites that copy Wikipedia content for their own purposes and we have absolutely no control over what they do (as long as they say it came from Wikipedia and it's GFDL content). When you created an account using your own name and made contributions, and when you created an article about yourself (as I understand you may have done), you agreed to the license terms just below the box on the edit page. You may not have read or fully understood those terms, but all we can do is try to help you on this site by blanking your name where it appears here. Alternatively, perhaps we could create a short and valid article on yourself, which should rapidly be taken up as the "official" copy from Wikipedia. I'm not familiar with your work, but if you can provide me with some details via email, including references and reviews from the press, I'll give it a try. Moonriddengirl would be able to do this much more easily than me, but that's not for me to say:) Franamax (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
Apologies for not getting back to you sooner on this topic, and for letting me know that our previous discussion had been archived. Things have been busy here, and I wanted to be able to take the time to discuss the issues in depth with Sassy before moving forward.
Sassy and I are both very grateful for the time that you have spent on this and the amendments that you have already made, which go some way to improve her personal security. However, we would like to investigate further the options for removing the name "Porter" from the page, as our preference would be to not include her last name in the Wikipedia page at all, since this does continue to expose her to some level of risk. I know that there are some references on the internet to the name "Porter", but in practice everyone in her industry always refers to her as DJ Sassy (or DJ Sassy P or DJ Sassy Pandez), so I don't believe that including her real name adds any particular value. If you could possibly seek additional feedback on this from other editors I think that would be useful, and then we can decide on the best way forward from there.
I have gone through my list of website links that can be used as references in support of the content of the page, and have found a few that I believe would be useful. But let's sort out the issue of the name first, and then we can follow this up.
Hi. No problem for not getting back to me quickly; we can take this at whatever pace is comfortable to you. I will seek further feedback on the question of her name, although I suspect that some contributors may not see the point of an exception to standard practice in this case, given that her name will still be visible on the page in what is currently footnote #8 and is used in a number of the references. It will probably take a few days for clear consensus to emerge, depending on how much participation the conversation attracts. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know that while conversations sometimes develop slowly on Wikipedia and further feedback could easily still arrive, the question hasn't generated much heat. One individual felt it was censorship, but he evidently didn't feel very strongly about it. Nobody else has bothered to weigh in. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Article Copy
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'd like a copy of my (speedily) deleted article, the title of which is Silenize. I'd appreciate it if you'd help me.
Hi. I'm happy to help. I've placed the article at your userpage. If you believe that you can assert notability, the article can be restored to article space. But please first read over WP:MUSIC and make sure that the band meets those notability guidelines. You should verify information with reliable, independent sources. Primary sources connected to a band or its label can't be used to verify notability. If the band doesn't yet meet guidelines, you may wish to remove the material to another host until it does, as such material is likely to be deleted if stored long in userspace. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions about these policies and guidelines. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
your userpage
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Would you mind if i used the template as the basis of mine? i would (of course) give you due credit. thanks! Ironholds15:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, by all means, help yourself. :) I'm hardly a master of design, though. I could use a wikifairy. :D (Note to the kindly ones: only a bit, though, in case any should be listening. I like being basically text based.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Moonriddengirl, I'm coming to you with a problem, since you did such a great job with the last one I had (with Grant Alpaugh, as you may remember) :-) JonBroxton came to me with a situation about a particular soccer player's wiki page, Jamie Watson (soccer). This player currently plays for a minor league squad (Austin Aztex U23), but someone with an anonymous IP continues to delete any evidence of his existence on the team, even though multiple sources have been confirmed ([5], [6], [7]). Could you help us out on this one, please? --Otav347 (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure. This one is actually easy. :) I've semi-protected the page for three weeks so that only logged in users can edit it. Ordinarily, persistent unexplained blanking is treated like vandalism, and editors who persist in doing it are blocked. In this case, you seem to have a changing IP, which means that any blocks are likely to affect somebody other than the blanker. I will give the IPs the proper warning anyway in case it's a simple case of the same person editing from several computers, such as work and home. Perhaps they'll respond to your requests to discuss the changes.
Please go ahead and add one of those sources to the article to verify that the information being blanked is true. It looks like this is a good choice for that. I'm not going to edit the article, as it's important that I remain uninvolved, but unverified material is subject to removal. It's best to go ahead and verify it. :)
I'm keeping an eye on the article, so I should see if the problem persists after the protection expires. If I don't or if you encounter this at any point elsewhere, try warning the editor by the templates linked at WP:Vandal and requesting page protection if it involves more than one IP. If it doesn't, after sufficient notice, the vandal can be reported at WP:AIV for administrator handling. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
You're right
Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
Extensive discussion of CSD is a bit off-topic for the RFA page. Still, your response surprises me. I'd assumed it was widely accepted (if not explicitly codified) that admins should exercise some judgment with CSDs. If you try to take them at their exact literal face value, you run into all kind of paradoxes and silliness. Garage band albums certainly can be deleted, just like an article for the band itself. The written CSDs lag behind actual practice. I don't personally see a good reason to try to keep them up to date- I'd rather call them historical and pay no further attention to them. One thing that is relevant to RFA- certainly it's good for a new admin to play things more or less "by the book" at first while they're getting comfortable. One they know better what they're doing, they will tend to use discretion more. This, as far as I know, is uncontroversial. I've been doing deletions that way for a year or two and I can't remember anyone ever having any reasonable objection. Friday(talk)18:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
My experience and observations are somewhat different than yours. I don't think the practice you describe is uncontroversial, but maybe that's because I somewhat routinely hang out WT:CSD, where the criteria tend to be discussed and taken very literally. Take this conversation for instance. There's more on the album point here, here, here, here, here & here. It's one of those frequently issues that never seems to get resolved. Here's where wording was codified to explicitly exclude albums--a change I proposed, though I do not necessarily support it, just for clarity. I personally feel like we need consistency in how we handle articles, and if there's no consensus to delete something by speedy, we should be clear about that. Again, I'm all for finding a way to include albums by non-notable bands. I do feel fairly silly PRODding them. I PROD them anyway.
There's a fairly concise (for wordy me) explanation of my own approach to deletions on my userpage, here. To really understand it, you sort of need to see the section on adminship below it, here. I guess it probably comes down to the fact that I think of new contributors as an extremely important resource to Wikipedia. (I don't mean to suggest that you or anybody else don't; I'm just explaining my own perspective.) Deletion is taken personally. I know it's not meant to be, because I've deleted all kinds of things without any ill will whatsoever towards the creator. (I sometimes am literally at it for hours each day.) But it is taken personally, and I think that's unavoidable. Nobody wants to see their work erased.
By remaining within process, I hope to encourage article creators to also remain within process and to contribute to process. If I cannot point them to a specific reason & rule by which their article was deleted, then I worry that I will instead be contributing to the notion that admins are arbitrary authorities rather than deputized enforcers of community consensus. :) For this reason, I think that CSD criteria should remain clearly worded and should be encoded before implementation rather than after. I know that policies can be revised to reflect actual practice, but in this case I think actual practice should reflect policy...not to increase the bureaucracy, but because I believe that the core point of CSD is not that we must quickly dispose of bad content, but rather that quick disposals must be uncontroversial, and we can't know that without some kind of clear consensus on what an uncontroversial deletion may be. Nobody gets the chance to object if they don't know that certain article types are being speedily deleted. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
If I may make just one small note, that I think the sentiment at new page patrol that people work from the "bottom-up", to give new articles a fighting chance needs to be encouraged/enforced a little more strictly. The fact is, if you don't tag a page in the first minute or two, someone else will. New page patrol has become somewhat of a race to see who can tag it first. One user even had a userbox stating it angered them when they were beaten to a tag. I don't think it should be that way. We're driving off people who could become excellent contributors in this manner. xenocidic (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
If an article can turn into something useful, what are we doing deleting it? Fast or slow, this is a mistake. But if it's pure crap, nip it in the bud. It's not helpful to newbies to let them spend lots of time on something that cannot possible be kept. I get asked why I delete things fairly regularly, and I've never found that it's helpful to quote chapter and verse of some rulebook. This encourages lawyering over it. I explain in plain English why the article was not suitable, and I can't remember some newbie ever saying "I wish you had explained this with terms like 'A7' or 'G6' instead." There is consensus that we can delete articles about albums of bands we would delete. Maybe this consensus did not become visible in some particular discussion, but it's there. I certainly try to help newbies understand what we're about when I see they've made inappropriate content. But I've never seen a case where being a stickler for the letter of the law makes this work better. Friday(talk)19:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
PS. If you don't buy my assertion that albums of deletable bands are clearly deletable, here's a little trick. An editor can merge articles as desired, and (unless there's objection) this is considered a perfectly legitimate edit, right? So, merge the album article up into an article on the band, then delete the lot. This is all perfectly legit and above-the-board. However, we don't require editors to jump through silly hoops like this just to satisfy the letter of the rules- we use a bit of common sense instead, and our rules aren't meant to be all that firm anyway. So, if you can get to the desired result by legitimately allowed actions, you can certainly skip the intermediate steps and just delete the album article. Simple. Friday(talk)19:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Since I don't remember really talking to you before I'm not familiar with your tone, Friday. I'm not sure if this is an emotionally charged conversation for you; it's not for me. My point in the above was not to criticize your approach or anybody else's, but, since you expressed surprise, to explain mine. It's not that I don't "buy" your assertion, I just perceive the matter differently based on those conversations which suggest to me that it's not uncontroversial. I think it should be. But I don't think it is. That doesn't mean that I think you're trying to sell me a bill of goods. :) It's just that though the silent majority of Wikipedians may be all for it, they haven't pushed it through at WT:CSD, where controversy does exist, and, after all, "In the case of policy and process pages pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected than on other pages." (If they want it, they should speak up for it.) Also, I have not intended to imply that you don't help newbies or that there are a string of confused contributors trailing in your wake or that you are not the absolute nicest guy ever in the whole wide world . :D And if your tone doesn't reflect actual irritation, never mind. :D Tone can be hard to read in text, but I don't mean to offend you. I actually enjoy discussing philosophies.
Anyway, I don't see letting newbies "spend lots of time on something that cannot possibly be kept" as the only alternative to speedy deletion. In fact, I've convinced creators on occasion to tag their own articles with {{db-g7}} when they do not clearly fit into the speedy criteria but also do not meet guidelines. And I, too, explain in plain English why an article was not suitable (or is not; I also volunteer at the Drawing Board in an effort to nip them before they bud). I don't think I've ever really run into lawyering. Well, not on a speedy case. I did once hit a fairly serious case of it after an AfD I closed. No newbie there, though. :/ He was eventually ousted for disruption and sock-puppetry.
But I don't see the CSD criteria as historical. I think they're alive and kicking and, more, I think they're a good idea. They aren't perfect, but I approve of them in concept. If even good faith and experienced contributors didn't vary so widely on what they believe merits inclusion, there wouldn't be as many polarized arguments as there are at AfD...or, for that matter, RfA. There wouldn't be so many arguments at WT:CSD.
Switching gears (and responders), xenocidic, I think that's a big problem, too. Just like some editors are trying hard to rack up edit counts, a lot of them seem to want to rack up kill counts, which in my opinion is contrary to the point of CSD. :/ And I'm glad you came by. I really meant what I said about your general contribution history. It's obvious to me that you're a helpful and kind editor; I like to see stuff like this. After our last exchange I looked through every CSD tag you've made in the month of May to confirm my first impression, and it did. It's only the speed & content at A1 that I really found problematic. I suspect you're going to pass your RfA just fine, and I think you'll probably be a very good administrator when you do. Seriously, before looking through your contributions I would not have imagined doing anything less than an oppose over the concerns I had. As my user page says, CSD is a big focus of mine, but I have great respect for your contributions in spite of it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you again for your input on this issue. I will definitely take measures to alleviate these concerns. xenocidic (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
(Just FYI, no, this is not an emotional topic for me. I had no clue I came off sounding like it was. I was just giving my opinion. Like you said, plain text is difficult. Don't worry about offending me at all. Open exchange of ideas on how to make Wikipedia work better can only ever be a good thing.) Friday(talk)20:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
<-- I suspect we're closer together on deletion issues than we sound. The main reason I don't bother spending time to try to get the CSDs to match what people really do, is that this process is quite tedious and unlikely to succeed. You can scarcely change policy formally these days. Besides, the real policies and guidelines aren't what's written on some page somewhere. They're what exist in the minds of clueful editors everywhere. It's true that there are some legitimate differences of opinion on what belongs- so, any sensible admin won't tend to speedy cases like that. They'll speedy the things that obviously don't belong. I remember back when the "no assertion of significance" criteria referred only to people and not to groups. Well, "Billy and Jimmy are the two coolest kids in the world" is clearly speediable. This was true even before the CSD was updated to include groups. Sure, it's good that someone took the time to update the CSD, but I sure hope they didn't spend much time on it. I'm way more interested in what actually works than what's written on some policy page somewhere.
If someone objects to one of my deletions for some legitimate reason, I'll certainly listen (and probably undelete if this is what's best for our content.) But if someone just says "This does not exactly match this specific criterion", well.. I'll never find that a compelling reason. We can simplify and achieve better results by always thinking in terms of "how does this make Wikipedia better or worse?" instead of "What does section 3, paragraph 12 say?" If I'd been strictly following existing rules back a year or so ago, I would never have speedied a bunch of "Billy and Jimmy are two cool kids.." articles. But I did delete them, and Wikipedia is better off because of it. I did it because I knew any sensible editor would agree that the 'pedia was better off without that stuff. I don't need to worry about what WP:CSD says at the moment, as long as I follow this simple principle. Friday(talk)20:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I certainly can't disagree with you on the difficulty of changing policy. :/ I suspect that I still have some squeaky new admin idealism in me. I've been an admin for over 8 months now, but my first logged in edit (I had a handful as an IP previously) was only in April of 2007. I've lost some of my eagerness to work on policies & guidelines after finding out how nearly impossible it is to keep policy change conversations even on track, much less to reach consensus about them. Herding cats, yes. I guess I'm probably still idealistic enough to believe, though, that if we really tried.... (Insert self-deprecating laugh. Which means that even though I suspect it's nuts, I still kind of believe it's true.) Really, though, I do think it's important to try. :) There's turn-over in this project, and new contributors and admins won't know if practice deviates from encoded policy. Wikipedia is better of that "Billy and Jimmy" are out of here. All the better that every contributor and admin know it, so nobody has to guess. :) It seems likely to me to lead to drama at DRV and individual little contributor pages that could be avoided if good sense is transcribed on the page.
I do think there's room in the policy as it exists for things that obviously don't belong. It's in WP:CSD#G3, as Wikipedia:Vandalism includes "creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages, etc." (I'm a compulsive wikilinker; I try to stop, but find I do it even in e-mails sometimes. I almost removed those two, but I know I'm going to slip up and do it at some point; might as well get it out of the way and explain now.) I wouldn't haul that out for good-faith contributions though, obviously, as being labeled a "vandal" is way more likely to offend than having your article improperly speedied under WP:CSD#Ga37.65(rev). Perhaps as I was not around before the CSD list became as extensive as it is, I wasn't quite as confronted by piles of inappropriate content that had no ready remedy. There are only a few times I remember that I've gnashed my teeth about having to AfD as they were so plainly wrong that I thought they needed to be gone immediately but had no process for doing so. (Please don't ask me which; I don't remember specifics, and I will feel compelled to spend hours searching my history and will likely only find myself going, "Oh, I guess that wasn't quite the emergency it felt like at the time.") We benefit from the work you guys have already done. :)
I guess to me it comes down to the same point it does to you: "how does this make Wikipedia better or worse?" I just still think that the best way to uniformly improve Wikipedia is to convince everybody else to look at it the same way. If, well, if we can. And if somebody doesn't inadvertently shift the conversation to some other soapbox instead. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Strange edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hmm. Thanks for pointing that out. Not realizing s/he had replaced your content, I presumed it was overzealous double tagging. I'm trying to puzzle out what's going on there. Perhaps it was an edit conflict and rather than note it and merge, the IP simply overwrote what you had already placed? He left a note supporting the deletion of that article on its talk page the same minute that he left the speedy warning, which makes it difficult to tell if he realized that the article had already been tagged when he placed the note. Anyway, I've restored your warning and removed CSDbots as unnecessary. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
If I wasn't assuming good faith, a look at the user's subsequent edits might make me think they were simply a troll. I'm sure they're just enthusiastic and trying to be extra helpful by tagging things for three different kinds of speedy delete at once. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Let me take a look. If the recreation does not address the problems for which the article was deleted at AfD, it can be speedily deleted. Otherwise, other processes may be necessary. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, that one turned out to be easy. Another admin has already reviewed it for just that very thing and concludes that the current article, while probably not meeting WP:BIO, does not qualify for speedy deletion as a recreation. He left his note here. It seems he has intentions of launching an AfD if he is not satisfied as to notability. You may choose either to wait for him to do so and express your opinion or (since it's been some time) just start a new AfD yourself. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Miss Moonridengirl, I've noticed that you've removed the Speedy deletion tag in this article. So what will happen to that article now, if it seems that the original article it was splitted from doesn't cite any sources or such? Also, the contributor of those text doesn't seem to take note of it either. Thanks Logicartery (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. :) As I explained at the talk page of the main article, contributors to that article need to figure out if the material warrants splitting or not. If it doesn't, the new article should probably be deleted. If it does, the material needs to be removed from the parent article and replaced with a summary and a note where to find the split. If contributors can't agree, then there are several options in the dispute resolution process that could be helpful in finding consensus. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the contributor not taking note of it; if you could explain that, I'd be happy to expand. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. From that "contributor not taking note of it", it seems they simply change and add texts to what they seem appropriate from their own words or they simply did not cited the source they got those from. I'll try to talk to the contributors and deal with the matters if the splitting was appropriate. Thanks again for the information :) .--Logicartery (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Moonriddengirl. I strongly oppose the term "cooling denier" to be transwikied to the Wiktionary. Also I propose the the article Cooling denier to be speedy deleted. The User Kauffner has disrupted the Global Warming talk page multiple times yesterday. He was reverted three times by a different person each (2 of them being admins). I tried to leave a message on his talk page to explain why his post was not helpful to the improvement of the article and was removed. So did another admin. Afterwords he started deleting other peoples entries from the Global Warming talk page. His behavious is more than disruptive. Now, he has decided to create the article 'cooling deniers' for which there is no scientific base. Even the website he cites is not using this term, which seems to be made up by him. Therefore I deleted the template to transwiki the term. Is there something else that needs to be done? Thanks Splette :)How's my driving?13:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Splette. :) Before tagging it I did a google search on the term, and it does seem to have some usage as a term, not simply unrelated words in proximity. I won't argue that it's probably a neologism, though, as its surely not widespread, and I certainly have no objections to the removal of the template, as I have no strong feelings about its inclusion on Wiktionary. (And as the template isn't working anyway, see my last edit before I got your note here :D.) But it doesn't fit into the speedy criterion for "nonsense", since "nonsense" is pretty narrowly defined at WP:CSD#G1. Given what you say, I rather doubt that he's going to allow the article to go through PROD. Since the term is in use, it can't be speedily deleted as a hoax, through WP:CSD#G3. I'd guess AfD may be the best course of action here. As far as disruption, that's a little tougher. Unless an editor crosses a clearly visible line, there doesn't seem to be a swift recourse there. As there seem to be more than two involved, if you can't reach an understanding with him, maybe Wikipedia:Requests for comment would be the place to go. Unless, of course, he does cross that line, in which case WP:3RRN or WP:ANI may work better. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey Moonriddengirl, thanks a lot for the detailed explanation. I usually dont use deletion templates, so I wasn't sure. I will change it to AFD as you suggested. Thanks a lot for the quick reply, Splette :)How's my driving?14:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I should note that despite these cogent arguements, the cooling denier article was speedy deleted anyway. I have been editing Wikipedia for years and I don't what to make this situation. Everything I write on Talk:GW gets deleted, even perfectly innocuous comments. Here Splette is openly admitting that he chases me to other pages in order to get revenge. I don't do personal attacks, violate 3RR, or anything like that. The phrase "cool denier" seems to be what rankles. Kauffner (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Just curious as to how the article asserts notability now. Admittedly I'm a bit narked that the author removed the original speedy tag himself and made no attempt to discuss on the article's talk page but, I'm also trying to learn as I go what counts as a "proper" assertion of notability. Also I'd think the author removing the speedy tag sort of means that the deletion of the article is contested and therefore not a PRODable article or have I misunderstood that as well? Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. :) The article doesn't assert notability, but does assert importance or significance as it appears now in that he is claimed to have appeared in several notable films. The threshold for asserting importance is, of course, significantly lower than the threshold for meeting notability. I have no doubts that the article does not meet notability guidelines as it is and, as I suggested in the PROD, have doubts that it can.
In terms of a PROD, there's nothing at the policy to suggest that PROD can't be used following a creator challenge of a CSD. Without mention of challenge, it does indicate under "Conflicts" that "a rejected speedy candidate is still eligible for PROD, but a rejected AfD candidate is not." I realize that this may sound like wikilawyering, as relying on a technicality, but I don't think it is. :) CSD criteria are generally very specific, deliberately narrow and related to one issue, while a PROD may relate to more general and variant guidelines or policy. (Let me clarify here that I would not PROD a challenged speedy if the PROD related to the same charge as the speedy.)
In this case, I don't see where the creator removed a speedy tag? It seems to have been intact from the time you placed it until I removed it.
I have notified the creator of the PROD with the usual template and left a note explaining how and why to contest the PROD. If the PROD is contested but notability not verified, I plan to take the article to AfD. I rather hope that the creator will read the notability guidelines and, if the article can't meet them, consider requesting deletion. That sometimes does happen. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if you're thinking about the fact that he started a new article on the same topic? According to his deleted contribution log, he never removed the CSD tag from that one either. As soon as it was tagged, he abandoned it. :) In a lot of cases, I'd be inclined to judge that as bad faith (an attempt to escape deletion), but I'm not entirely sure here. His note at the new article's talk page seems sincere enough. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Either way I'm probably just confused. Was doing lots of New Page patrols yesterday. May very well have been a totally different article and author. Thanks for the help and addressing my concerns though. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Rubén Serrano
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Our grumpy friend from the thread above will soon find his google search back to the old familiar. Your talk page ranks up there, but the next archive round of your page will take care of it. DLP's wiki-page was still showing up on the 2nd page of google, but I've expunged his name from various spam reporting and COI archives, the cross-links are gone, everything will be good. There is a strong temptation to shout DUDE, you registered your name on the world's 6th most-popular website and made an article about yourself, what did you THINK would happen? But, we're here to serve :) Since Mr. D.L. P. has not been forthcoming with reliable information to help us create an article, I consider our responsibilities here to be fully discharged. Plus ten bonus points! Franamax (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Good to know. Again, I'm so glad I weighed in there. I'd have had no idea what to say to him. Twenty bonus points for you, I think. ;) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Steffy sigar
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi again. I'm bringing this here further to the above conversation we had about another article by the same author. I'm tempted to tag this for deletion but, am aware it may appear like I have some sort of vendetta or something against the author. Could you have a look and feed me back your opinion. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I understand the concern, but I personally would go ahead and tag in such a situation anyway. In this case, it's probably no longer an issue, since somebody else has in the meantime tagged it for PROD.
Generally, if I am concerned that multiple tags may feel bitey, even though I know they're not meant personally, I will leave a note for the creator, something along the lines of "Hi. I don't mean to seem unwelcoming. We appreciate your contributions, but I am concerned that these specific articles do not meet the blahblah guideline" and inviting them to come to my talk page if they need help. You might send them to the drawing board instead if you don't feel like coaching new article creators is something you should/could/want to be doing. I would, but since I'm likely to be the one they meet there, I'd feel like I had stumbled into some kind of Monty Python routine. ("Can I help you?" "You're the girl from the other counter." "No, I'm not." "Yes, you are. You've just put on a fake mustache.") The templated warnings are good, straight-forward and informative, but sometimes the personal touch may help soothe ruffled feelings, I think. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Cool. thanks for the advise and the chuckle I got out of the Monty Python reference (generally getting my Wednesday off to a good start) Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
First to Fight Picture
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, I'd like to add a screenshot of the video game Close Combat First to Fight to the page, because I saw a reccomendation there to do so...
But I'm not exactly sure how to do this...
A good way to describe my wiki skills: Abysmal.
Alright, thanks. I'll try that out, and let you know what happens. On computers, you take a screenshot by hitting the button "Print Screen" and pasting into a document or MS Paint. The button is at the top, right, and is usually next to the Scroll Lock.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for the message. I couldn't work out whether I was just missing the category. Thanks for letting me know. Ged UK (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
