User talk:WereSpielChequers/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Home

Bling

Content

Userboxen

Editcount

Talk

Guestbook

Email

This is where I archive 2010 threads that are mainly about deletion. I have also made some notes on this at User:WereSpielChequers#We're Spiel Checkers - thoughts on deletion.

Sister Vincenza Taffarel

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Vincenza Taffarel (2nd nomination).Borock (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I categorised her and tagged the article for notability, but I'll leave it to those interested in the subject to debate the AFD. ϢereSpielChequers 20:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Drown (disambiguation)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drown (disambiguation) for a Merge proposal. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Andre Staffelbach

An editor has nominated Andre Staffelbach, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Staffelbach and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I declined the speedy as it asserted importance - but I have no strong views as to the notability or otherwise of business people. ϢereSpielChequers 23:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Captain R.T. Claridge redirect page

Thankyou for attending to the speedy deletion tag on the redirect page for Captain R.T. Claridge. I see from your edit summary that you declined a speedy deletion as "looking at what links here this would seem a useful redirect". Ironically, prior to the existence of that redirect page, every link to the Claridge article went directly to the article without any problems whatsoever.

So the creation of a redirect page was itself what created a redirect issue that never previously existed, and which may not need to exist just for its own sake, or to reward behaviour that was not itself helpful.

Looking at your comment, and then the article title, I realise the subtle difference that now exists, that didn't previously exist prior to the misleading move. The difference now, which I didn't spot at the time of reverting the misleading move, is that there is a space between the initials R.T. You can see this in the edit summary at time of the originally misleading move. You can see that the space between the initials was inserted at that time. And it is the remaining space between the initials that creates the illusion of the need for the redirect as it now exists. Let us be very clear on this. It may not be a need. It may be an illusion of a need.

On realising this, my initial reaction was to consider renaming the article again to remove the space. However, on checking the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Middle names and abbreviated names, I see that there is no consensus either way regarding the use of spaces between initials.

Two questions arise from this. Firstly, just how common is it for Wikipedia articles to have spaces between the initials of names? A sampling of existing articles is required for this. For example, from a list of names, like this list of names.

The second, real question to ask is whether a disambiguation page needs to exist for the purposes of distinguishing between a name with spaces between the initials, and a name without spaces between the initials. If so, where are the specific examples?

From the above list, the first equivalent name I find is C. D. Baker. This happens also to have a space between initials, which on its own doesn't answer the frequency question, but does tell us such articles exist apart from the recently renamed Claridge article.

Using the Wikipedia search function on the side-bar, I type C.D. Baker with and without spaces, and the same disambiguation page appears. We don't get a redirect for the spelling with and without spaces between the initials, and the result clearly indicates one is not needed, as the search function is not bamboozled by the use or non-use of spaces between the initials.

I previously did the same exercise for the Captain E.G. Beaumont article. While the link is sensitive to the presence of a space between letters, thus Captain E. G. Beaumont, if searching for this fellow, the same article comes up for selection whether or not a space is used between the E and G.

Now given that it is possible people to find the article completely regardless of whether or not they use a space between R and T for the Claridge article, the redirect appears to be unequivocally redundant. Wotnow (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: After some consideration, and realising that the whole erroneous redirect arises from the original links in article and bot archives not having a space between the R and T, I realised that the most logical solution is simply to rename the Captain R. T. Claridge article so that there is no space between the R and T. However, on attempting to to this, I find the existence of the redirect page itself prevents this. So what has arisen is an Alice-in-Wonderland situation of surreality, where a redirect that doesn't need to exist has, by it's mere existence, created the need for itself to exist.

This is so patently ridiculous that I have placed another speedy deletion tag on the redirect. Possibly the most disconcerting thing of all of course is the need to explain all this. But that's how it goes I guess. I am going for one outcome, and one outcome only. To rename the Captain R.T. Claridge article so that there is no space between the R and T, just as it was originally, before Alice-in-Wonderland prevailed. At that point, the links which previously went directly to it, will once again go directly to it, and some semblance of sanity will prevail again. Regards Wotnow (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirects are useful, and redirects are cheap. If some people spell a name as Captain R. T. Claridge, Captain R.T. Claridge, R. T. Claridge or R.T. Claridge then whichever of those four is the article, ideally the other three should all exist as redirects to it. I have no view as to which of these four should be the article, but I would point out that without the current redirects the article would be an orphan, ϢereSpielChequers 09:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. On looking at other examples, such as H.G. Wells, I see Claridge is not alone in having links from other articles via a redirect. It does no harm, and may do some good. I must point out though, and I hope you can recognise this, that the Claridge article was never an orphan prior to the renaming of 28th January 2010. That was part of the point I was trying to make. The 'orphaning' was an artifact of the renaming on 28th January! Regards. Wotnow (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well as I said I have no view as to which of those four it should be, but even rare variants are worth allowing for. Last I heard we had 3.9 million redirects, and while we can fix typos and so forth in the pedia, one of the few ways we have to fix typos in people's search routines is to have redirects that allow for them. ϢereSpielChequers 16:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur, and I thank you for your patience, assistance and feedback. The exercise had a number of net benefits, including those you mention. I also found myself reviewing areas I'd previously passingly contemplated, and considering things that had not previously occurred to me. For example, I never previously considered a redirect for 'Richard Tappin Claridge' which might be useful, as those who know the name in full are likely to have encountered it in areas other than hydropathy, such as asphalt production and uses, and business law. Or even perchance in geneology or military histories (although I've not encountered anything of significant regarding his involvement, apart from mysteries to solve, such as why he resigned in 1854, the same year I understand he married for the second time and then disappears off the public radar screen, itself an oddity to me, the answer to which lies documented somewhere). Kind regards. Wotnow (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

What to do in this case?

User:Nothughthomas seems to have taken issue with my correcting his use of speedy deletion criteria and is going off about me on Talk:David Lewis Anderson and his own talk page. I've never had any problems with an editor, but he's saying he'll "file a complaint about me", and I believe he's the one who's not being civil or assuming good faith... so what do I do? XXX antiuser ^eh? 23:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Assuming he doesn't and hasn't filed a complaint I would be inclined to avoid someone who doesn't want to talk, especially if he has now stopped editing again. Miscommunication can be annoying, but sometimes the best thing is to walk away from people. ϢereSpielChequers 13:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately they didn't stop so the matter's now being discussed on WP:AIN#Incident with User:Nothughthomas. XXX antiuser ^eh? 01:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether he took it to |AN/I or you did, but he is now blocked. If you walk away from people they can either back off, or escalate matters and get blocked.... ϢereSpielChequers 15:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

re: declined CSD on User:Helichallenge

The user was blocked indefinitely for spam, and the userpage was an ad before someone blanked it - I figured use a G2 tag since none of the others really described the situation. I forgot that the {{indef}} template automatically deletes the userpage or talkpage after about a month. 2 says you, says two 13:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

OK that makes sense, {{G11}}would be appropriate if it hadn't been blanked, but I think non admin blanking of that sort of spam is a sensible route to go. ϢereSpielChequers 09:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter Rosenberg

Oh, come on! Just because the article uses the word "notable" doesn't make it so! Speedy guidelines say the indication of notability must be "credible" - says so right there on the speedy notice. A one-sentence article with links to the subject's own web site and that of his employer is not credible. OK, so now we'll clog up the AfD stream even further (sigh) ... - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Plus it's already been speedy-deleted once. I decided to PROD for now rather than AfD and take my chances. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Just saying someone is notable certainly doesn't make them so, but it is perfectly credible for a Hip Hop radio DJ to be notable in the way that "Notable new group will be playing their first rehearsals next week if they can find a drummer" isn't. That new editors "one sentence article" was several hundred bytes and had two references. OK there were problems and we need reliable sources, but that was quite a good start and we should really be helping people like that become better wikipedians. Who knows, maybe they can find reliable sources for that article, or maybe in the process of looking they will decide he isn't notable. ϢereSpielChequers 20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: declined speedy deletion of Mariwan Kanie

The article might assert that the subject is notable, but the references are too weak to back up that assertion. Can I proceed with a prod or AfD? Alexius08 (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course you can. I have no knowledge of Kurdish literature and whilst I'm pretty confident this chap doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria, I concede he may well be deleted after an AFD discussion. But thanks for asking me. ϢereSpielChequers 14:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Category: Non-first grade Newcastle Knights players

Hi, could you please delete this category. It isn't needed anymore. Cheers. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. BTW anything you are practically the sole author of you can delete by tagging with {{db-author}} - we're hoping to get a bot to automate that at somepoint so you won't even need an admin to delete stuff that you did. ϢereSpielChequers 12:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Anna Laurson

Looking at her website, if she's sung such Ring roles as Fricka and Erda at venues including Deutsche Oper, Valencia and La Scala and has recorded or performed under Barenboim, Harnoncourt, Abbado, Gergiev, Zinman etc. with bands including the Berlin Phil and the Concertgebouw, then that keep decision was definitely right. Can't chase it up today as I'm just off to ralatives for a birthday meal but one of my talk page watchers has done a little to reference.

Were you iin Birmingham or something when you shuld have been at the Penderel Oak?--???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs)

Or something is correct - it looks like I'll be missing three months in a row; twice for family birthdays. Thanks to you and your TPS for the rescue work. ϢereSpielChequers 16:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion declined: Fred lanting

Thanks for the notice. After googling this guy I found his notability mostly to be confined on US dog breeding circles but his publications can actually be tracked. So I've added a bibliography link to his article (as moving it to a capital L was no longer necessary ;) ) De728631 (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. One question though - there is an issue with one of his books (Canine hip Dysplasia)- a version is circulating around that is illegal (a publisher stole money from him and then sold it claiming to support Fred but it wasn't). The illegal version is easy to tell - it has a green cover (the current legal version has a blue cover). Is it OK if I add this information into the page? I won't go into who did it etc. but I think people should know that the green cover version is not approved by Fred. Draggar (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Draggar, One, can you source that to a wp:reliable source? and two would you mind reading wp:COI? Thanks ϢereSpielChequers 23:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sadly there is no official posting about this. The only thing I could quote are emails I received from Fred (which I doubt this site would consider credible. His site does go over what happened with MrGSD.com and FredLanting.com article but it doesn't go into the green cover vs. blue cover just about the domain, FredLanting.com, was acquired by his webmaster a few months later. Draggar (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are quite right about emails from an individual not being acceptable here. I'd also suggest that whilst you are very welcome to edit here, its probably a good idea to stay away from a subject where you may have a conflict of interest. ϢereSpielChequers 00:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Pim Conradi

None of that was in there at the time I put the db tag on it, but I still think he's non-notable. But I do appreciate your letting me now. I try to do that with any such tags I remove, but it's rarely reciprocated. Woogee (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any reliable sources, so I've listed the article for afd. Woogee (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, I was about to say I wouldn't want to predict how it would fare at AFD, as I'm not convinced he's notable, but speedy only requires an assertion of importance. As for informing people, I sometimes don't bother if the article has changed so much that the tag is no longer correct. BTW it was only 3 minutes from when the article started to when you tagged it, that's fine for attack and vandalism pages but may I suggest you hold off a bit with the A7 tags? Often a little delay gives the author time to finish what they were saying. There's now a nifty button for a one hour delay, also have you tried back of the queue? Its clogged up four weeks - longer than I've seen it since October. ϢereSpielChequers 21:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

For one thing, once I've discovered a problematic article, it's virtually impossible to find it again. That's why I tag when I see. For another thing, it's a BLP, which needs fixing once seen. Note: I'm not angry or anything, as I read what I'm writing, it sounds terse and angry, it's definitely not. Woogee (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I'd agree that the current Newpage patrol process is a bit of a trainwreck, and it isn't easy to get the right balance between filtering out the crap and not biting the newbies. I'm hoping that the new sticky prod process will result in a change to the instructions for contributors so that creating BLP articles one sentence at a time is no longer allowed in mainspace, that wasn't my first choice but I don't see any other way to make the process work. As it is when I'm at the very front of the queue I just concentrate on the extremes - good stuff worth marking as patrolled and bad stuff for zapping. Anything in between I categorise or just leave for those who patrol later - mind you the back of the page queue is a bit depleted nowadays - the backlog there has gone from nothing to four weeks in the last twelve weeks, and its now the worst its been since last October. ϢereSpielChequers 17:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a {{db-author}} that you have declined...

... please see this diff. B.Wind (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

OK but the author is actually user:Sarcelles. If they agree with that assessment and add a {{G7}} tag then it can probably go as an author request - though I'd have to check how significant the subsequent edits have been. As for the comment that the title and contents are incorrect, well errors in contents can be corrected, incorrectly titled articles can be moved to a better title. Neither is a reason for blanking an article and assuming that the author wants it deleted. ϢereSpielChequers 08:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I'm trying to add references, citations and photos to the wiki page "Joe Humeres" but I'm not sure I'm doing it right. THere area few flags on the page and I'm a bit new at wiki so I'd appreciate your help. THank you! - Charlie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 240overandaway (talk • contribs) 21:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'll have a look tomorrow for you. Can you find some press reports on him? ϢereSpielChequers 22:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A question of deletion

Hi WereSpielChequers, I hope you are well.

I have a question you may be able to help with:

User Spongie555 has asked me if I can find out why the article they created, St. Pius X school, Chula Vista was deleted.

As I have no access to deleted articles, I was wondering if you could shed some light on this?

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my butting in... The article is in fact at St. Pius X School , Chula Vista. It hasn't been deleted but it looks like some of Spongie555's edits were reverted. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, seems to be sorted now, I've added another warning to the vandal's page. ϢereSpielChequers 09:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That's great. Thank you for your help :-) -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Jose Jiminez has been moved

One of the articles you've prodded, Jose Jiminez, has been moved to Jose Jiminez (singer) as Jose Jimenez is a signature alter ego of comedian Bill Dana (and has been for over 50 years). I have dabified the original title. B.Wind (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me informed, seems like a sensible move, and it will be interesting to see how the sticky prod process survives the experience. ϢereSpielChequers 14:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi could you please delete this redirect. I can't rename a certain page with this one existing. Cheers. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done ϢereSpielChequers 09:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for handling my G7 request, happy editing.--SKATER ^Speak. 18:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. We really ought to have a bot to do those, so that editors can in effect delete their own stuff. ϢereSpielChequers 16:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Man, I don't know what happend, Poor Editor "bombing" it was. Thanks for catching that ! Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, I understand it was a redirect. Thanks for your help ! Mlpearc MESSAGE 17:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you tagged something whilst it was being moved and a Computer somewhere threw a wobbly and turned your tag into triplicate. Nothing to worry about, blame it on the server kitties. ϢereSpielChequers 17:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Was wondering why Johnny Polygon page is considered for deletion and if there is anything that can be done to make it a better page. Thanks TeamPolygon (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well firstly have a read of WP:Band - that sets out 12 criteria and if Johnny can meet any one of them it will probably be kept. Secondly we have a number of project groups where wikipedians with similar interests collaborate. I don't think we have one for Rap, but you might want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Hip hop. Thirdly, but most crucially, you need to be able to reference reliable sources - we are a tertiary source relying on what others have said about Johnny Polygon, not what the band and their record promoters might have said. ϢereSpielChequers 21:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Hideo Sawada

Hello WereSpielChequers, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Hideo Sawada has been removed. It was removed by Jclemens with the following edit summary '(sourced it, deprodding)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Jclemens before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 09:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: David sweder

Hello, looks like you didn't erase the template yet. I did a yhits search on a lot of combos for this individual. It only got three good hits IMHO which is why I nominated it. And, there was nothing about a championship. Otherwise, I would not have nominated it. If you believe elsewise, please help by providing citations to the article. --Morenooso (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the main url used as a reference looked to me like it is a self-editted board ala IMDb. I did not consider it WP:RS. Sorry if I'm breaking your train of thought. I will let you do your stuff as you seem to be editting the article nicely. --Morenooso (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the assertion of importance was there when you tagged it. Also it was only a minute after creation, if you tag things for speedy deletion in their very first seconds its best to stick to filtering out the vandalism, attack pages and maybe the most blatant A7s. But I've tagged the article with refimproveBLP, and you've project tagged it. Lets see if that gets an improvement. ϢereSpielChequers 14:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I might have been agressive in tagging the article but I have a separate seach window always open. I did the search as indicated. I reverted because the CSD tag was deleted. However, in retrospect, I probably should have just re-added the tag. Sorry if my actions did not seem appropriate. --Morenooso (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Article just got PROD'ed. Looks like it has been soaking up the tags. --Morenooso (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thats the beauty of prodding - 7 days in which anyone can look by and see if they can rescue the article, and if not it gets zapped. I neither know nor care whether that particular Lacrosse championship is significant enough for a winning coach to merit a bio, but I do want the author and those who care about the subject to have a reasonable opportunity to rescue it. ϢereSpielChequers 06:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Watch this! --Morenooso (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a feeling somebody would PROD or nominate it for an AfD. WP:ANYBIO should trump WP:ATHLETE and WP:NSPORT. I bet it will end up at AfD because there is not much WP:RS out there on him. Even that database entry website is kind of weak IMHO. Morenooso (talk) 06:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the chap who prodded it seems to be doing a lot of Lacrosse related stuff. So I would have been inclined to leave the prod in place, IMHO if the people from the relevant project don't think someone is notable they are probably right, also I'm not sure the reference names him, just his team.. ϢereSpielChequers 11:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I noted that prior to discussing all here on your talkpage. I usually try to do thorough reviews of what I am looking at and who the other editor is. The onus is on him now: take it to WP:AFD or move on. --Morenooso (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, one of the tertiary URLs I found listed him on the team but no mention of the team winning a championship. Except for the cited URL, which I still feel looks liked a user editted database ala IMDb, AfD would be where WP:CONSENSUS would be achieved. Morenooso (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

DOUGLAS MORPETH

If you think the buiography is sufficiently sourced, why don't you make yourself uselfull and shape into the Wikipedia form yourself ? As it is now, it is unacceptable. Kunsthistoriker (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't comment on the sourcing, I merely declined a speedy deletion tag. If you think the article is unacceptable you are free to fix it or take it to AFD. As for making myself useful, I'm a volunteer here, I rather hope that some of what I do may be useful to some people, and most of what I do I enjoy doing, otherwise I wouldn't do it. Whether I or any editor chooses to improve an article is a matter of personal choice. If you are suggesting that anyone declining an incorrect speedy deletion tag should be morally obliged to improve the article they declined to delete, then I would suggest you consider the implications of that. IMHO it would be perverse to incentivise admins to delete articles that are incorrectly tagged. ϢereSpielChequers 23:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ashlee Gruenberg

Does this qualify as a speedy hoax? "Ashlee" does not match the spelling of "Ashley" given within the article? Or perhaps as a self promotion created by an IP on an existing page that was approximately close to her name because she couldnt create a page without an account? Active Banana (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Its under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people#Redirects_turned_into_articles. I think we are approaching a consensus for sticky prods in these cases. ϢereSpielChequers 22:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering if we even need to wait the 10 days of the BLP PROD - the IP user who could not create a page (of any name) simply plopped onto a similarly spelled existing redirect page "Ashlee" some (likely self promotional) content to create an article about Ashley (Gruenberg). Or does the existing page need to be moved again to reflect the Ashley spelling? Active Banana (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it meets any speedy deletion criteria. Normal prod or AFD would quite likely take it out in just 7 days, but both involve more faff and an attempt to reference it, Whilst a sticky prod puts the obligation on the rescuer - source it or it goes.... (ps I've moved it). ϢereSpielChequers 23:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks! Active Banana (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What happened here?

Supposedly a user created the page Special:Undelete which may be nominated for deletion, and now it says the page is restricted to administrators only. mechamind90 15:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Good spot. I think what happened is that I deleted the page that user created one minute before using that particular message template, and it works better the other way round. Hopefully this will fix it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. ϢereSpielChequers 16:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

article on David Downes

In an article on David Downes there was infomation on 2 persons with that name. At 13:10 on 19 March 2010, you removed one of them. Since then, an editing struggle has started as your edit gets replaced with the person you removed then getting reverted. Perhaps you'd like to look into that. -Micro- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.192.100 (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I'm terribly sorry, it looks like I protected the wrong version. Now if both were notable we could make two separate articles with hatnotes or possibly a dab page. As it is we need to explain to the fan of the Kiwi chap that reliable sources are needed. ϢereSpielChequers 18:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, The above claim appears to be incorrect - I've checked the history of the article and have commented at Talk:David Downes -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For rescuing two David Downes articles where once there was only one -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horris the Horrible

• Feel free to get in on this discussion. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Can't believe it has come to this, who would have thought my involvement in Wikipedia would result in me being able to tell the difference between real and hoax gangster rappas. ϢereSpielChequers 07:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Cameron (writer)

Hi. I have removed your "hoax" tag from this article, because I have found and added references to confirm most of what it says; but I have removed the bit about a Dennis Potter award, although his profile at the Curtis Brown literary agency does make that claim because, as you found, the BAFTA website doesn't confirm it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, nice work, wonder what the truth really is. ϢereSpielChequers 21:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi, could you please delete the List of Agmark Gurias representatives. It has no use. Thanks. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, done. ϢereSpielChequers

Speedy decline of Hakim-e-Inqilab Dost Muhammad Sabir Multani

I would like you to re-visit your decision...this article clearly can be speedied under {{db-bio}}. A full deletion discussion seems unnecessary to me. If you do reverse your decision, please close the deletion discussion. Thank you.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

replied on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hakim-e-Inqilab Dost Muhammad Sabir Multani ϢereSpielChequers 14:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

George Koskotas

You managed to delete this while I was sourcing it, so I've undone your deletion. It should be OK now. Hut 8.5 22:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, nicely done. ϢereSpielChequers 22:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Even More Deletions!

Hi, i know it's a long list, but there's alot of deadwood on here. Could you please delete the following articles:

• Jared Edwards
• Keiran English
• Mitchell Garbutt
• Chris Marlborough
• Angus McHattan
• Ryan Stig
• Theeran Pearson
• Trent Hilton
• Ryan Lamb (rugby league)
• Phillip Latu
• George Morseau
• Manaia Osborne
• Jeremy Papamau
• Template:Top 10 NRL Halfback Try Scorers 2009
• Template:Top 10 NRL Fullback Try Scorers 2009

Thanks. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. ϢereSpielChequers 14:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Greatly appreciated. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yang Mao-liang

Yo. I'd appreciate if you could restore this article: Yang Mao-liang. A quick Google search gives you several sources, like 1, 2. --Eivind (t) 08:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've restored it so you can add the references. ϢereSpielChequers 08:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ricky Powell

Hello. I see you're a fairly recent contributor to Ricky Powell, an earlier version of which had been deleted as the result of an AfD. Um..... Hoary (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, well I wouldn't claim to be a major contributor to it, I categorise lots of articles and when I do so I don't tend to check for prior AFDs. Now that you've brought the AFD to my attention I'd say that {{G4}} doesn't apply because the current article is not substantially identical to the deleted version, and the changes do at least address one of the reasons for the deletion. That said the notability claims are similar and the new sources are offline and not familiar to me. The only previous G4 I remember declining was one where the main claims for notability were for events that hadn't yet happened at the time of the first AFD, and when the tagger took it to AFD I simply made that point and asked for people to weigh the article on its current merits without regard to the previous AFD.

So I suggest we restore the deleted edits so that non-admins can participate in any discussion, and contact the participants of the previous AFD and ask if they are happy that the new article meets wp:BIO, and if not suggest they file a new AFD. Does that sound reasonable to you? ϢereSpielChequers 06:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Done already. (Had there been more participants in the AfD I'd have been a lot less enthusiastic.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Category was supposed to be a Template

Hi, could you please delete the Category:Newcastle Knights squad. It was supposed to be a redirect to a template, but i accidentally wrote category. Thanks. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Charu Nivedita

Hi- the whole article is a copy paste from the author's official website and is not encyclopedic. http://charuonline.com/blog/?page_id=2

Gs44631 (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you tagged it with {{db-g12|url=source URL}}. If you'd tagged it with {{db-g12|url=http://charuonline.com/blog/?page_id=2}} I'd have had a chance of seeing what you thought it was a copyvio of. However its important when looking for possible copyvios to look at the page history and also to inform the potential copier, otherwise you could wind up case speedy deleting an article that has been here for years, simply because someone has just added some data to it. While not informing the possible copier means they don't know what you think they did wrong. ϢereSpielChequers 18:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Max Williams-Forbes

An article that you have been involved in editing, Max Williams-Forbes, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Williams-Forbes. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. jmcw (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I declined a speedy and tagged it for notability. I'm happy for the martial Arts project to decide which martial artists are notable or not. ϢereSpielChequers 13:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Adam Ditchburn

This is to notify you that the article Adam Ditchburn, in which you seconded my BLP-prod, is now at AfD here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't so much as second as tag it as a UBLP. I'd agree that the local paper doesn't establish notability, but I see no reason not to count it as a reliable source for the existence and profession of a local person who they report on, so in my view it was a legit deprod. ϢereSpielChequers 17:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Tamara Holder

Noticed you've edited the Tamara Holder page recently. I can't add projects to its Talk page as it is currently non-existent and protected due to previous deletions. This seems inconsistent to me. If the article is kept and can be edited, shouldn't the same go for the Talk page?--Plad2 (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, very inconsistent - good spot. The article was deleted in 2008 after an AFD, I don't think the new article meets the G4 criteria, not least because the references are to 2009 coverage, so its entirely possible that she has become notable since the AFD. So I've restored the talkpage, project tagged it and dropped messages to some of the AFD participants who are still editing. ϢereSpielChequers 09:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback}} - answered in my message to Hobit.; please do not hesitate to chip in. Kudpung (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Cedar Sigo

{{talkback}}

Speedy Deletion

Thanks for the advice, and apologies. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologise to me, I've made far worse mistakes in my time, but you might want to go back to the authors you warned and either remove your warning or improve one of their articles. ϢereSpielChequers 12:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Cinoman

Your early work on the article Susan Cinoman encouraged me to look futher, and in my finding additional sources, I bagan additional improvements. Might you care to assist further? Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, happy too. I've added a category and will keep her on my watchlist. ϢereSpielChequers 12:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Derek Minno

So, where is the credible assertion of importance in the article? Chris (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

One assertion would be managing director of an organisation that has an article, another is that committee with the multi-billion dollar fund, a third would be "gained notice in the private equity community". I'm not sure if the article would or should survive AFD, but remember the threshold for A7 is deliberately very low. If you don't think that those claims add up to notability as a businessperson feel free to tag it for notability, but I'd be inclined to take the view that if third party references appear in the next ten days then the chap is notable, if they don't it will be deleted and the notability point will be moot. ϢereSpielChequers 10:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, though I think that only the first of those is valid - "gained notice in the private equity community" is meaningless. Still, I don't want to argue - it's just that sometimes I tag things like this for speedy, and they get declined, and other times I take them to AFD and they get speedied. Sigh. Chris (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I can understand the frustration - we aren't as consistent about these things as perhaps we could be, and some of those are judgement calls where there are others far more deletionist than me. But its also possible that during an AFD people can establish that an article is in fact a blatant hoax or for some other reason meets the speedy criteria. However in the case of new unreferenced BLPs like this I would say you are pretty safe with a BLP prod - especially if as you did you let the newbie alone for an hour with what was clearly a good faith new article. ϢereSpielChequers 11:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hey, could you please delete my User:Josh the newcastle fan/Sandbox. It isn't needed anymore. Thanks. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Adil 'Suet-pi' Soubki

Thanks for catching that, poor form on my part to miss the G10.  -- Lear's Fool 06:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes it just takes a second pair of eyes. ϢereSpielChequers 06:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Guardian Raacca

I gave this a second pair of eyes and decided it was close enough to be G4-worthy, especially as I found that Oxford University has a searchable "Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature" which includes a list of proper nouns, and there is nothing relevant there, confirming that it's a hoax. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually deleted and then restored it as I thought the offline references were worth giving a small hint of doubt. Since this is so similar to the previous hoax I've blocked the account - they are probably a sock and certainly not here to help. ϢereSpielChequers 18:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Bigg

It appears there is a dearth of information on Mr. Bigg, also known as Diamond Eye Bigg. However, perhaps his most famous claim of being shot in the eye while sitting in a car and having the eye replaced with a glass eye with a diamond in it, can be confirmed here. It looks like the Mr. Bigg Wikipedia page has been deleted now. Clinevol98 (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you help me ,please

Hello Were. I'm the creator of the Anabell López article.I added two news links for the biography .I like to know if these links are enough to delete the tag that is on the top of the discussion page of the article: This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced </wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability> must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard . If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page

.Also I don't know if I put them in a correct way.Could you help me with this checking please?Thank you. Vicond2 (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Vicond, I've done a little formatting there. we put that tag on all biographies of living people, so you don't want to delete it you just need to make sure that you comply with it - though I don't see anything contentious in that article at present. There was a deletion tag on it before, but it was referenced by User:Phil Bridger. If you look at how he made it an inline cite, you could do the same with your two references if you put them immediately after the fact in the article that they support. ϢereSpielChequers 07:46, 16 August

2010 (UTC)

OK,Thank very mutch Were.I tried firstly some times to put the references in a better way by myself but I could'n attain.I have to attempt it aggain.Now, I can see the way that you make it also so I'm more chances to not fail..Also, and the best of all, I'm so happy to hear that the article haven't problems with this tag so I'm gald, very much for that.Thak you aggain.Sincerely:Vicond2 (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible urgent G10

An editor has opened an AfD on this page. Whether the subject is guilty of the claims or not, or whwther the article is even a complete hoax, the article is completely unsourced, making the statement highly contentious and defamatory. I think it should go immediately to G10. You're the expert ;) --Kudpung (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ta tis toast. If you see the like of that again feel free to blank it and slap a {{G10}} over it. An AFd tag doesn't mean it has to be at AFd for 7 days - speedy deletion can still apply! ϢereSpielChequers 16:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

M. Petrovich (Peter) Bronstein

Hi WSC, I wonder if you could do me a favour. Erring on the side of caution I AfD'd the above page. It's now agreed that it's a blatant hoax, so I've slapped a G3 on it. Could you please delete it, delete the fake photo too at File:Peter Bronstein - Soviet Theoretical Physicist.jpg and close the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. Petrovich (Peter) Bronstein. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, done:) The photo is actually on commons, I'm only a very occasional visitor there but I'll drop a note to a commons admin. ϢereSpielChequers 17:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Image now deleted on commons. ϢereSpielChequers 20:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Asaf Ataseven

The article Asaf Ataseven has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lots of people are Physicians, but is there anything that makes this gentleman a notable Physician?

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 12:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No, but coverage in reliable books does. I don't speak Turkish and the google transnlate is bad. Otherwise I'd translate from Turkish wikipedia and find some sources. Dr. Blofeld 12:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems to have been declined, so my prod is moot. But I do wonder what the point is of starting a stub without even an assertion of importance. ϢereSpielChequers 10:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2

Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 7#Secret pages: Ok or not?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who did the work on that, I just happened to fix a typo there and was shocked to see a deletion template. OK it wasn't as bad as trying to delete one of the Beatles, and yes I've declined deletions there. But that was bad to the point of being unsettling. ϢereSpielChequers 23:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Userfy request

Hi - wondering if you'd be kind enough to help the author of Urutur catholics. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's probably no need - the user has been informed of the correct way to go about it at User talk:C9VReddy#Urutur catholics. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've done a little copy edit. ϢereSpielChequers 21:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

revdel

• what is the word should this be oversighted [1] Aisha9152 (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • wp:Oversight can be used in such circumstances, some editors aren't actually bothered at revealing their IP address, others are. So if an editor requests it their IP edit can be oversighted. ϢereSpielChequers 06:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Um, so how do I request it? I hadn't realize I wasn't logged in when I'd originally replied, or that it would remain after my edit :-( Deviny (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks yet again! Deviny (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
        • You're welcome. I've deleted the revision so only admins can see it. If you want it oversighted so even we can't see it then just file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. ϢereSpielChequers 07:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Yikes, that seems like a lot of trouble since admins can see all sorts of other info about me. I just didn't want it out there for any random person or bot to see. Thanks! Deviny (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Energy sector of Ohio

Hi, could you take a long cool expert eye over this: Editing Energy sector of Ohio It's languishing at the bottom of the NP barrel, and even I can't make out whether it's about a company, or a BLP, or a big spam disguised as a BLP; Thnks.--Kudpung (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean ‎Energy sector of Ohio? If so it looked to me an economic history of the energy sector in that state. ϢereSpielChequers 15:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about the link.--Kudpung (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

talk-page deletion

Hi WSC, I would love to find discussion about G8, which has vexed me a few times recently when I encountered pages whose deletion discussions should really have continued. And I've never understood the drive to mass-delete talk pages... what do you think? Does this come up regularly, or am I bothered by it more than most? I wanted to write something like the note below; say on Wikipedia talk:CSD:

Having one's articles removed from article-space could be a peaceful collaborative experience -- with the article returned neatly to the author wrapped up in a friendly welcome message and a pointer to editing guidelines. It is most editors' first engagement with the project, and a first article is a defining moment of a young editor's career. However, the slap of deletion is currently a common reason newbies give for rage-quitting Wikipedia.

Without addressing newbie-biting in general, some of which has its reasons, G8 plays a particular role in making the deletion process unfriendly -- it often erases all discussion about why an article should not be deleted, which would be important reading for any future work by that editor or by others on the same topic. Editors are encouraged to discuss or dispute deletion requests, especially speedies, notability, verifiability, &c. on the talk page. But if they aren't convincing, or don't work quickly enough, both their work and that discussion are gone.

I think we should do to talk pages what we do to AFD discussions: preserve them as a record of what discussion has gone before. (Another confusing aspect of G8 in its current blind implementation: if you have been having a discussion about an article that is losing a VfD, the only way to preserve discussion about why it should or should not be deleted is to paste its talk page in as commentary on the AfD discussion. But most newbies don't understand the processes well enough to know that every vestige of their work is going to be systematically wiped...)

G8 could be rephrased as something that applies to specific types of deletions -- say, G1-G10.

I'd appreciate your thoughts, or links to any related proposals that have been discussed before. –SJ+ 17:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sj, I can see where you are coming from, but I can also see some instances where deletion is best and uncontentious, my own deleted contributions must include hundreds of articles that I've project tagged as part of the uBLP project and which have subsequently been deleted. In my view it would be a mistake to keep them once their article has gone.

I'm more focussed on CSD than AFD, and tend to focus on BLPs and attack pages, others will have different perspectives. Yes a lot of G8s for attack pages will be necessary deletions as a talkpage saying why can't I write an unsourced bio of a pornstar/school bully/local restauranteur with a sideline in Mafia killings is just as high a deletion priority as the negative unsourced BLP.

As for less contentious BLPs, my big concern is the freeze and confusion effect of prior deletions of different people of the same name. I've had people ask me why x has been deleted as other politicians in the same parliament have articles, and had to explain that the deleted article was entirely about a juvenile skateboardeer on the other side of the world. We have many millions of such deleted articles, if we now started keeping the talkpages it would cause a huge problem for the uBLP project; We have a daily bot that maintains lists of uBLPs for about 600 projects, that process relies on a group of editors project tagging newly identified uBLPS (we've dealt with the backlog of 12,000 uBLPs without project tags). If people stopped deleting talkpages per G8 then we'd start seeing more and more chimeras where a cricketer has been deleted and an article is then created for a martial artist of the same name, I fear this would lead to various projects pulling out of the process because they were expecting a list of cricketers and suddenly there are martial artist and maraca players in there. I appreciate this is likely to be a much bigger problem for BLPs than in other areas - but don't underestimate the number of times that a town in Japan can share the name of an American politician.

I would suggest that you aim to keep the default to delete; Always delete where there is nothing but project tags or the contents are inappropriate, but spell out more scenarios where it is appropriate to userfy the talkpage - perhaps even by merging it with the newbies talkpage. ϢereSpielChequers 22:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you restore a deleted page?

It was recommended to me that I ask you about the page on William R. Moses, which appears to have been deleted because it was lacking evidence of notability. I don't know what was on the page at the time of deletion, but according to this archived copy of the page, there was definitely a lot of pertinent info about this not-insignificant actor. Since the person who had deleted it appears to be away, can you restore the page? Thank you. Deviny (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. It seems someone vandalised it, then added a speedy deletion tag. ϢereSpielChequers 13:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Kudpung (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

shouldnt the person who speedy deleted it have checked for that kind of vandalism? sorry i found this because i was reading the editor assistance page. Aisha9152 (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes they should, but accidents do happen, so I've dropped them a message. ϢereSpielChequers 14:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking care of this! Deviny (talk) 05:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hollie Greig

Hi WSC, if you're still online could you do something about this please quickly? I started to AfD it, but it's a recreation of something that should be nuked ultra quickly. The previous AfD is self explanatory. --Kudpung (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kudpung {{G4}} is best for cases like this, the key thing to remember with G4 is that the article needs to be similar - i.e. if an actor has won an Oscar or a sportsperson has competed at international level since the AFD then its best to consider them afresh. But this one just needed to go, thanks for bringing it to my attention. ϢereSpielChequers 17:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine if you've got the tool to take a quick look at the one that was deleted. I often feel there should be a criteria such as 'Possible recreation of a previously deleted article with a similar title' - perhaps I should suggest it at the pump if it hasn't been already.--Kudpung (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Difficult to define that without creating a host of ambiguities. I suspect G4 is largely used by admins who have watchlisted articles they've deleted or watchlisted for other reasons, or who check the logs for articles tagged for deletion under other reasons. For non-admins the best way would be to look at the previous AFD arguments and see if they still apply. If your budding popstar has a previous AFD closed as delete - not yet competed at international level then it would be reasonable to assume the previous AFD was a different person of the same name. Equally if the article is largely about their 2009/10 activities and the AFD was in 2008 then it would be reasonable to assume that the article is dissimilar even if about the same person. But if the last article closed as unelected political activist, and the latest article fits that description, then I wouldn't criticise a tagger for tagging it G4. Even if looking at the deleted article it was a different person of the same name. ϢereSpielChequers

Recreation of an AfD by possible sock

Hi WSC, could you please check out who created this original article that was deleted yesterday. It was recreated today under the same title by a registered user who has a virgin talk page. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

List of doping allegations against Lance Armstrong

Sorry to be a pest again, but I don't quite know what to do with this. I would be inclined to G10 it and blank it, but it's a good faith article. IMHO, though it's WP:WEIGHT, and it's harping on a lot about something that was never proven. Thoughts? --Kudpung (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

G10 is for unsourced stuff and this looks sourced, though I haven't checked every detail. I suggest AFD - I agree weight is an issue, but also this is an encyclopaedia and these are allegations and coatracking - some of it has a hint of original research. ϢereSpielChequers 10:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 20, in case you missed it (I know you've been busy). --Kudpung (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle question

I'm sure I'm being dense about something and would appreciate a pointer as to what I did wrong when using Twinkle for the first time to send an article, Paul Cote to AfD. Having read the instructions, I thought that Twinkle would automate the whole process, including creating the AfD page and listing it in the music deletions sorting log. But it didn't. I'm guessing that it's supposed to and that I missed a step or a check box or something. I ended up doing the listings manually, which is no big deal but I'm now concerned that I've messed up somewhere along the line. Could you have a look and let me know, please?--Plad2 (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Plad2, I'm afraid I'm a near novice as regards Twinkle. I'm pretty sure I've only used its AFD option once, but it worked for me (I did this in Firefox on my Linux machine). I think your AFD tag looks OK, but if you had to do manual edits you might want to raise a query at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. Cheers ϢereSpielChequers 13:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do.--Plad2 (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Terry Van Horne

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Terry Van Horne, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! VERTott 14:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Casino Steel

Hi Tbhotch, I've declined your sticky prod on Casino Steel because it looks to me that the article is about a band rather than the biography of a living person. ϢereSpielChequers 23:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Bands apply to the BLP policy as living people, either article of a band is a biography of living persons (if are all living). Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 00:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes the policy applies, but not the deletion method. broadening BLPprod to unsourced new articles on music groups, and for that matter films would be a big change to our deletion policy. In the longterm I'd probably support such a change, but there are other things we need to do first. In particular we need to change the user interface to prompt contributors for their source, and make it clear to new article contributors that the rules are changing before we tighten them - doing it the other way round risks biting newbies. ϢereSpielChequers 07:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ramona Milano

Hi

I was going to cantact IrishGuy to ask if there was anything usefuk in the dleted article but found he has retired.

Milano may have been not notable enough in 2007 but since then she has been in several series (you can see the list at IMDB which seems fairly comprehensive [2])

I have been considering a new page and if there is anything in the deleted page that would be useable is there any chance you can userify it for me onto the end of the page User:Chaosdruid/sandbox

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chaosdruid, I've restored Ramona Milano for you so you can update and reference it. ϢereSpielChequers 10:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol - I can see why it mayhave been deleted now !

Thanks for the speedy reply :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A pleasure, thanks for bringing it up to scratch. ϢereSpielChequers 00:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Done as much as I can for now and think thats probably it unless I can find any more refs in the archives for her stage work as the work she has done is not very well referenced. Was fun doing it though :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I think the Degrassi connection will attract more additional edits than any stage work she does:). But your gives a good foundation for that. ϢereSpielChequers 07:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Itamar Ben-Gvir

Why did you SPD again?? I was recreating the page from scratch --Shuki (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not dropping a note on your talkpage, but my connection dropped. We have very strict rules about negative unsourced information about living people, Wikipedia is not censored, but an article with statements such as that ended with needs to be reliably sourced. ϢereSpielChequers 13:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

But the page I created had nothing in it. <redacted>--Shuki (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know why I considered that an attack page then it is probably better to discuss via email rather than posting it again whilst still unsourced. If you have reliable sources then I'm happy to look at them and will restore the article for you to source it. But please don't quote negative unsourced biographical information when discussing why it might be considered negative. ϢereSpielChequers 13:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick ?

Can you delete this page for me ---> User talk:Redthoreau/Wiki Wisdom. I made the mistake of tying the first one to my talk rather than user page. Thanks. You can also remove this question once you see it.    Redthoreau -- (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael Lionello Cowan

(bugging you because you're the nearest uninvolved admin who recently edited the Michael Lionello Cowan page)

The "Filmography" section is directly copypasted from the IMDB entry at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0184605/ , and 86.176.7.179 (talk · contribs) is starting to edit war to place it back in, which I contend is a copyvio. If it is, can something be done about this? The user is clearly not listening to me, and I am not a person to edit war or anything. –MuZemike 02:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've put a note on their talkpage. If it was vandalism I'd semiprotect the page, but coopyvio doesn't seem to be one of the justifications agreed for semiprotection. ϢereSpielChequers 09:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

RevDel request

Would it be possible to get the past couple of edits by IP 24.99.101.174 revdeleted from The Cottage School? I believe they meet CFRD criteria #2. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course, good spot. ϢereSpielChequers 21:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Perfect, and the semi-prot should help as well. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Recreation of nonsense article

I just added {{db-nonsense}} to Dominic Edmundson but when I went to put a notice on the author's talk, I saw they had a similar recent message, and the log shows you recently deleted the page. The page is clearly intended as a joke (it links to a beer article, and refers to "Big Head Dick", and more. I'm just letting you know in case you want to salt it; no reply needed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that editor has had enough rope. Good suggestion re salting, but {{G1}} is more for gibberish - I deleted that one as {{G3}} blatant hoax. ϢereSpielChequers 10:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ivić Pašalić

Please, next time you come across an unreferenced BLP from WikiProject Croatia, regardless of a negative tone, if it's been up for years, it isn't necessarily an attack page. I and many others reviewed the entire list many times over, and if there were really egregious BLP issues, we would have noticed by now. Instead, please tag article for rescue or PROD them, but mostly - tell others who may not have it on their watchlists, and it's more likely they'll get fixed rather than deleted. TIA. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Joy, Thanks for referencing that one, and for the reassurance that the Croatian project has screened the rest of them. {{G10}} isn't just for attack pages, it is also for negative unsourced BLPs, I consider myself one of the more inclusionist editors involved in the uBLP cleanup, and I'm sure that many of the alleged mafiosi, pornstars and others I delete would be fair comment if they'd been sourced. But if I come across a negative unsourced BLP I do consider it a legitimate deletion as without a reference we have no easy way to differentiate between covert attack pages and legitimate but negative articles. Incidentally we have editors threatening to resume the deletion sprees of unreferenced BLPs, so if the Croatian WikiProject could reference some more of those uBLPs it would be really helpful. ϢereSpielChequers 12:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you delete my old vector.js?

Hi. Could you delete my old skin script? I've switched to monobook and I tried putting a {{db-userreq}} on it but since it's an javascript it can't really display a db template correctly, it just includes it as part of the code. Cheers. Usb10 ^Connected? 15:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Done Airplaneman ✈ 20:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Recreation of nonsense article

I just added {{db-nonsense}} to Dominic Edmundson but when I went to put a notice on the author's talk, I saw they had a similar recent message, and the log shows you recently deleted the page. The page is clearly intended as a joke (it links to a beer article, and refers to "Big Head Dick", and more. I'm just letting you know in case you want to salt it; no reply needed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that editor has had enough rope. Good suggestion re salting, but {{G1}} is more for gibberish - I deleted that one as {{G3}} blatant hoax. ϢereSpielChequers 10:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for sorting out User:Madhusen01. That was a better solution than my rather blunt-instrument A7 tag. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but don't underestimate your own work - that note you gave her was very appropriate and friendly. ϢereSpielChequers 16:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Minkhaf II and Rawer

Did you decline the speedy on the basis that all princes are notable, or? I've been asked on my talk page, and although I can guess I can't be sure. I think the point of the speedy was simply that all we have about them is a name on a tomb wall, and I've seen articles deleted because there will never be enough material for an article, which is the case here I'd say. Dougweller (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how notable such Egyptian princes are. I declined the speedies because I consider being a Prince of Egypt at the time it was one of the world's more powerful states to be "a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7". I might observe a discussion at AFD on the matter of their notability, but I probably wouldn't participate. I don't think we have a speedy category that would cover ancient historical figures that are unsourcable though notable, and I rather hope we won't have as this strikes me as unsuitable for a speedy decision. As for whether there will ever be material sufficient for an article, I rather expect that there is much still to find in Egypt and elsewhere. But of course today we can only use the sources that exist now, though our systems need to be ready to restore or rewrite as and when new things are found and published. ϢereSpielChequers 21:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who asked the question. I see where you are coming from, and I see why that would be your response. In this case they are actually great-grandchildren of a king and only appear as small boys in the tomb of their parents. I personally don't see them as notable in any way at this point. I think the phrase "prince of Egypt" used in the article is misleading in that sense. I think a redirect is probably the way to go at this point. Thanks for the explanation both here and on your userpage regarding speedy deletions btw. I'm trying to figure out how to do these things correctly. :) --AnnekeBart (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anneke, well plenty of princes die young and many of them are forgotten footnotes in history, so a redirect might well be appropriate, especially if only one of their parents is notable. But if you want to delete articles for lack of notability then prod or AFd are the way to go - speedy is supposed to be for the hundreds of high school prom Queens, rock bands who will have their first gig as soon as thy find a drummer and suchlike that arrive every day. That's why prod and AFD give you the opportunity to explain that you've checked the sources and have a reason to consider these princes non-notable, whilst the speedy templates usually don't. ϢereSpielChequers 22:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I also think we shoud just simply redirect them to the Kaemsekhem's page.--Mychele (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Amy Wren

Hello, WSC. I've added a source to this micro-stub. I did not want to remove the PROD you placed without stopping by to check with you. Let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks Tiderolls 17:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tiderolls, well I can't argue with that, you've added a reliable source supporting a fact in that article - she did star in that movie. So I've removed the prod. BTW anyone is welcome to decline a BLPprod provided they or someone else has added a reliable source that supports at least part of the article. ϢereSpielChequers 17:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hi WSC, I noticed you on the list of admins prepared to revdel; would you be able to remove the phone number added here and on my talk page here? It's nothing to do with myself but appears to be someone with an axe to grind. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. ϢereSpielChequers 20:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh Land

Hi WSC, I'm just inquiring on your deletion of "oh land". I had tagged Oh Land for speedy deletion under the A10 criteria, because it was created a few minutes after "oh land", but you deleted "oh land" instead and removed my CSD tag from Oh Land with "proper name" as edit summary. Even if the name of the latter was better, wouldn't the proper procedure be to delete Oh Land per CSD A10, then move "oh land" to Oh Land, suppressing the creation of a redirect? — Waterfox ^~talk~ 23:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Waterfox, as they were both created with the same content by the same person at almost the same time I wouldn't get too hung up about which came first. The one I kept had the name that was used in the article, the other had the classic mistake of using quotes. ϢereSpielChequers 23:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

More mail

{{You've got mail}} --BelovedFreak 22:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, good spot. ϢereSpielChequers 23:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --BelovedFreak 23:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

David J Marcou

Thanks for your comment on the David J. Marcou article. I wrote the article myself and posted it on my contributions page. It clearly states the nomination for the Pulitzer. Happy Holidays to you. Sincerely, Dacorbandit (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

IP put speedy tag back

Hi there, you will probably be interested by this. The IP added back the A7 speedy tag that you removed. I have since removed the tag and left a note on the IP's talk page, but I'm not really that experienced with telling people why their speedy tags have been removed. If you could take a look at the note I left and add anything that I missed or didn't explain so well it would be appreciated. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That looks fine, but it is a curious article for someone to be trying to delete. Perhaps they want to create one for someone of the same name and are trying to get this existing one out the way? ϢereSpielChequers 19:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah it is strange and they added it back again and it was removed again. I've left another note on the talk page asking why they want it deleted. Bizarre. Jenks24 (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Erick Mason

My bad, I need to brush up on my speedy procedure, haven't done it for too long! ninety:one (reply on my talk) 23:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries, a prod is often a good way to go for this sort of thing if you can't find sources. ϢereSpielChequers 23:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion declined: Bidushi Dash

Sorry, I'll be more careful next time! Feezo (Talk) 13:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

RevDel request

 Thanks, done that ϢereSpielChequers 22:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I picked you at random out of CAT:RFRD. Could you please take a look at [3] and RevDel it if it meets criteria? Thanks. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm happy you declined the speedy on Skip Battaglia.[4] It would have been a true shame if it had got tossed because of poor WP:BEFORE... and I am quite glad I was able to shape it up.[5] Any sugestions for further improvenment? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Michael, well I've managed to link him into two other articles. So one could argue whether it is an orphan anymore. ϢereSpielChequers 21:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite nice. :) What is the deal lately with some experienced senior editors being so impatient with newcomers, and not doing their homework? This article asserting awards (a reasonable assertion of notability) was improperly templated for an A7 speedy deletion only eight minutes after creation. I am extremely grateful that it lasted the 4-1/2 hours until you wisely removed the tag. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't entirely new. One problem as I see it is that our admins are few, and thoughtful processing of the speedy deletion queue is timeconsuming. The occasional over-enthusiastic deleter can delete far more speedies in an hour than a more cautious admin can process. What I don't understand is the mentality of people who want to stretch the deletion criteria to get rid of stuff it was never intended for. Even if an admin or other editor rejects the tag there is often a newbie bitten in the process. One of my concerns is that taggers don't necessarily get enough feedback, I've seen several crash and burn at RFA who didn't realise that their "work" was seen as unhelpful. ϢereSpielChequers 23:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

re. Speedy deletion declined: Ghada Abdel Moneim

About the article, the author of the article is Ghada Abdel Moneim herself, she also created an Arabic language article yet the content is somewhat different for example she claimed that she won the "Suzanne Mubarak’s Prize for Children's Literature" at a different year.

Anyway I fail to see the importance of the article. The claims mentioned are not supported by any references, as the external links go to a blog, a facebook account, and an article where she comments on a previous article written by someone else. Other links lead either to deleted content or to some irrelevant information. I believe that this wikipedia article is not more than a cheap way of spreading her CV as. If this article passes I might as well think about putting my CV on wikipedia ;). Rafy talk 00:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think that claims in an article are false then tag it as a hoax, when I saw this article it was tagged as A7 despite saying she'd won a national award. It has now been deleted via AFD which is the suitable venue for discussing whether an award is sufficiently prestigious to confer notability or not. Speedy deletion is not for cases where you need to search for references to decide whether the article merits deletion or not. ϢereSpielChequers 15:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. I was just trying to help since it was what I saw an obvious case of self promotion. I didn't have time to go throw all the deletion policies. have a nice day. Rafy talk 16:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Promotional stuff is {{G11}} and I agree if you'd used that tag it is close to the edge, but not in my view beyond the point of recovery. Deletion of good faith contributions is something that needs to be done cautiously and within the scope of policy, otherwise we risk biting newbies or creating an appearance of bias, that's why it is much better to work on the basis of in doubt improve the article. ϢereSpielChequers 15:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks!

Thanks for catching that I'd forgotten to UND the talk page there. Much appreciated! --j⚛e decker^talk 17:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous decision about Egongling River

Hello. I am not using "G1" to delete this page (cause this page is not nonsensical). But I think it is a little bit absurd that you keep this page and the reason is "It's a river in China". Is that meaning every river in China can stay in Wikipedia?(remind:here is not the wikia of river in China)Moreover, this is totally not an article. It is a sentence only. It even shorter than "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh."(that's the sentences listed on the A1) Thank you for your attention and please redecide this sentence.—An Macanese 22:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi An Macanese, you didn't tag it as G1 you tagged it as A1, and which is about context. Egongling river may be a very short article at the moment, but it does have context. As for whether every river is notable, well yes I suppose they are. ϢereSpielChequers 22:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Does this river actually exist? Google gives nothing other than Wiki mirrors. Sadly I can't speak Chinese, or I'd try a translation. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah now that is a good question, if you smell a hoax that would be a good reason to delete it. But I'd be a bit cautious about that with Chinese names - Google might not be the only way to find it at least under that version of the name. ϢereSpielChequers 23:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sir, I think you better to think "now". What it is now is a sentence. lf nobody touch it, it maybe must keep a santence and templates only.--An Macanese 02:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(tps) I think natural phenomena like mountains; glaciers, rivers, large lakes, and such have to be de facto notable because they are there and don't need proving. It's one of those quirks of Wikipedia that allows one short correct English sentence to be an article. --Kudpung (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, personally I'd like to see policy change so that every new article required a source, but even then X is a mountain/village/river in Y would be a perfectly acceptable start of an article if it had a reference. Usually that would eventually grow, but with the pedia not yet even ten years old we don't have a baseline for how long it would take such articles to grow - just an understanding that there are systematic biases in our editing community and while we have no shortage of editors covering the minutiae of Heavy Metal or Battleships, we are short of editors working in areas such as geography outside of the English speaking world. ϢereSpielChequers 13:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see everyone including battleships in the same sentence as hurricanes, roads, and heavy metal. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

New pages

Hi WSC. With my concerns for BLP, I've been working a lot from the bottom of the backlog of new pages. I suppose I'm right in thinking that any pages over 30 days old just get kept as de facto unproblematic. It takes me a whole day to clear just one whole day's backlog, even when working quickly, and bordering on drive-by, and rescuing whatever I can. The backlog contains thousands of articles, and they are of course the ones that most new page patrollers probably did not know what to do with. Most of these pages appear to be BLP, - mainly minor film starts, Indian academics, and footballers, and then there is the sundry assortment of non notable firms. Is there, or has there been any incentive to get more, more experienced patrollers to work on this backlog? --Kudpung (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, welcome to one of my favourite places on Wikipedia, though I've not been active there much myself of late, and I suspect some of the regulars have moved on. Yes if an article isn't marked as patrolled within 30 days it is automatically marked as such. Normally the length of the queue hovers between three and four weeks, and if it reaches 30 days, by the time it does so the vast majority of new articles have been deleted or marked as patrolled - with perhaps a hundred a day for the end of the queue. Looking at the current end of the queue I'd say that we have more like 200 a day and I believe this is unusually high, I've had a bit of a trawl and I think it is the usual end of the queue mix of the obscure and the abstruse, with few that clearly don't belong here though many might be of marginal notability. One possible response is to focus on the stuff that interests you - if you see someone whose articles are clearly worth patrolling, or clearly worth prodding it is possible to filter by username and look at their other new articles. If you see someone who has clearly mastered the art of writing new articles that belong here then it is possible to nominate them at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled - that takes a little longer tan just patrolling their latest articles, but all their subsequent articles will be automatically marked as patrolled. The other possibility is to raise your concern at at the village pump, as I have just done . ϢereSpielChequers 14:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have met with some rapid replies - perhaps the next step is to get a consensus on an RfC. One editor has suggested making a automated log of all the pages that slip unchecked through the 30 day deadline. Not a bad idea either.--Kudpung (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

New pages

Hi. Surely breeding cats is even more boring than NPP ;) I've whacked off a couple of thousand from the bottom of the list (phew!) over the last three days, so by today by my time zone (GMT+7) we now have nothing older than 16 Oct. If that two/three days gets filled up again quite quickly, then I most certainly press for the notion of an extension, but perhaps also to mass canvas all the members of the NPP project to rally together, although of course nobody likes working with the hard stuff in the bottom of the barrel when the low hanging fruit comes in every 5 seconds. --Kudpung (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If in your timezone the oldest is the 16th Oct then we are I suspect rather more than 7 hours apart :). But seriously congrats on gaining us that safety margin, I think the end of the queue is a more challenging place to be than the front, very few articles there are going to be obvious candidates either for deletion or patrolling. So for those who specialise in it it is a more interesting place. Though personally I haven't had the heart to go there since I realised that developers regard extending the queue as easy but undesirable as the deadline encourages us to work harder.

I think that it would be a mistake to only argue for an extension when the backlog is currently at 30 days, better to say the queue length is known to oscillate and has frequently been at over 30 days in the past. Extending it by putting a hidden category on articles that are still unpatrolled at 30 days is simply closing a loophole. ϢereSpielChequers 08:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It's been an interesting empirical exercise; First for me personally because judging by the feedback, my error rate is well below 1% - and I think you caught most of those ;) - but it has also shown that they fall mainly into 3 categories: newbies in GF who don't know any better; SUA who are trying to promote their book or their band; and hard nosed paid corporate spammers who know all the tricks in the trade. I feel sorry for the occasional school teachers who have done a lot of hard work on a kindergarten in Upper Knowwhere, and the kids who's spent hours on the graphics for their favourite comics, but that's the way it goes. If you look at this, you'll see that I've been working through several different times zones (you are the only other editor I now who never seems to sleep), and because I've had only two or three edit conflicts in all that time , I'm not sure that there are very many people working at the bottom of the deep end. What I am now convinced of is that we need far stronger (but friendly) messages on the edit page reminding newcomers of a few basic rules before they press the save button, and to suggest even more loudly that they prepare stuff in their sandbox first. We also need to come up with a solution soon for revising the sticky prod - I've only been able to use it about four times, which makes it all but useless. We have to box for your (our) earlier ideas for a catalogue of links that should be forbidden. We also need to shorten that 10 days to 7. It's 10 days at the moment because that's how I closed the consensus at the RfC. There was no real consensus, so I took the average of all the different suggestions and used that. No one complained objected. --Kudpung (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Remember certain types of articles won't make it to the back of the queue, as they will have been deleted or patrolled. I really wouldn't expect to see many attack pages or legitimate sticky prod candidates for example. Perhaps occasionally there will be an hour when the front of the queue is unattended and some crap gets to sit until it gets to the end of the queue, but I suspect that is rare, did you notice any such batches? As for the ten days for the sticky prod, why change something people seem prepared to live with? I suspect that a high proportion of the ones that are worth salvaging get rescued, but shortening the queue would be needlessly aggravating to some rescuers who are doing good work. I probably don't come across the spammers as much as you do because I rarely look at articles on companies, but I largely agree with you as to the provenance of many of our borderline articles. I think we do have several difficult areas re sticky prods:

1. I've deflagged three Autopatrolled editors who were creating uBLPs, but we need to watch out for this as they bypass NPP (I've requested a report, but it is a tricky area and it really needs a database report to spot these).
2. I suspect some patrollers are marking uBLPs as patrolled without even tagging them as uBLPs let alone sticky prodding them. This part of a broader issue that people are inconsistent as to what it means to mark a new article as patrolled. In the past I've suggested a two option process - a "not vandalism" tag and a "ready for mainspace" tag. Currently I believe we have some patrollers marking articles as patrolled because the subject is worthy of a article even if the current stub is a good faith but unsourced effort.
3. I also think we need to stop marking articles as patrolled when they've been tagged for deletion, but instead have a separate colour for articles that have been tagged for deletion. That way when a newbie removes a deletion tag the article would revert to unpatrolled, and patrollers could choose to ignore articles that were currently tagged for deletion (It would also save patrollers the click needed to mark such articles as patrolled).
4. Currently the handling of Myspace and similar sourced articles is wildly inconsistent, and a lot of the articles tagged as unreferenced BLPs would be better tagged as selfpublished and refimproveBLP. If that was done then I suspect that a lot of the remaining newly tagged unreferenced BLPs would get sticky prodded, but at the moment they are buried in the category unreferenced BLPs. I think we should re-open this in say January as by then there will have been a decent interval since the last RFC. I think the main concerns people had were in keeping the test a clear one and not suddenly creating a backlog with a thousand articles all being BLP prodded at the same time. I'm fairly confident that if we can address the backlog issue we can get consensus to broaden sticky prod, but my instinct is to do this incrementally - identify how many articles are affected, attempt to clear or make manageable the backlog in each case and then ask for the sticky prod to be extended. For example I think Linkedin is quite rare as a self published source, and MySpace rather less so, but getting a listing of these two, Utube and facebook would be the logical next step. ϢereSpielChequers 15:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

30-day unpatrolled New Pages

Hi WSC. Remember the earlier discussions we had about this? Well, I keep having a stab at these but I'm fighting a losing battle, I was about to attack yesterday's 93 pages, fetched a coffee, and when I sat down at my desk they had all suddenly fallen off the cliff already. The very fact that they haven't been patrolled, is because the front-end NP patrollers find them either too difficult or that they take to much time to resolve. The fact that these articles are allowed to escape does not mean they are any less dangerous than the spams, scams, hoaxes, and attacks that are speedily deleted within minutes. They nearly all have something seriously wrong with them. I know you've got a lot of plates spinning at the moment, but what can I do to sort this mess out without spending hours every day doing a drop in the ocean on the list? I fully understood when you suggested that extending the time limit might just make people even more complacent. Do they get at least an automatic 'unpatrolled' cat added to them so that we can track them? Perhaps they should go automatically into some kind of incubator, and there should be a project created similar to a uBLP backlog project that can deal with them If you think it's a good idea, I'd go ahead and create it. My personal motivation is due to all the BLPs bunkered in there. --Kudpung (talk) 08:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. I gave up on the back of the patrol queue when my suggestion was declined, I'm a volunteer and I really don't appreciate it when people think it isn't worth automating things because volunteers should work harder instead. I suppose we could simply create a hidden category for them and manually add it, but unless it was automated it would it be worthwhile? Alternatively there is the new unreviewed article template and the needs expert attention template. You could add these to some you are unsure of. ϢereSpielChequers 08:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Thing is, the way I work, it would take just as long to manually add one of those tags as any of the other maintenance or AfD tags I add, so that also defeats the effort I’m personally prepared to put in on the list itself. (Like you, I have a couple of other plates spinning, as well as having practically taken over the schools project for the time being). I really think the answer is to have a bot add an invisible cat '30-days unpatroled' to any that fall off the cliff (some days it's not 93, it's as many as 250). Best would be simply to send them to an incubator, with a bot applied message to the authors - a kind of long term PROD, if you like. Then I would be happy to get a project up and running to take care of them, much in the same way as the uBLP people are doing, - and being very good at it. Please don't think I'm trying to involve you in yet another project, just using you as a sounding board really, so if you think I'm barking up the wrong tree, be brutal, but there’s little point in us insisting on all the strictness of BLP, for example, if 30 or 40 are allowed to get away with murder every day! BTW, did you get the mail I sent a couple of days ago?--Kudpung (talk) 09:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Got the mail thanks, but have some real life stuff on and probably won't reply for days. I think there are several possible solutions to the 30 day problem:

1. Lower our guard and mark stuff as patrolled if it is probably OK
2. Enlist more help such as by getting this into the backlog drive
3. Get a bot to add a hidden cat

My preference is for number 3, but we need a bot writer. I agree that manual tagging/hidden category adding only works where you are reasonably confident that someone sensible will be interested in the tag. For example uBLPs of Heavy metal musicians I just put {{HMM}} on the talkpage and know I can forget them. ϢereSpielChequers 10:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. I've taken this a stage further. Let's see what he comes up with. He worked on the BLPPROD template. Kudpung (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I still can't work out why Rd232's proposal to automatically tag them all as {{new unreviewed article}} received so little support. It would have sorted them into a category that identifies the problem and already exists. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It has the disadvantage of being yet another template, I'd much prefer that we replace templates with hidden categories, especially ones like this that are meant for regulars to remove. But yes I'd agree, better this than nothing. ϢereSpielChequers 16:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for the template to display anything, if it's a "regulars only" cat it is adding. Rich Farmbrough, 19:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC).

(this talk of hidden categories > templates reminds me of Erik9bot, which of course added a Erik9bot-specific hidden category to pages, which then got converted to a more generic category after Erik9 was blocked, which then got converted to the normal templates (if I'm correct)) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to do a survey as to which "cleanup" tags are most frequently removed or the reason for them dealt with by newbies and IPs. My suspicion is that orphan and deadend would both be better done as bot reports or hidden categories. ϢereSpielChequers 23:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this needs to be one of the major clean up campaigns for 2011. The first and most important move is to start tagging them in an invisible category. This needs no great discussion and can be done quickly. At least we will have them on our radar and we can look at them to see what kind of general condition they represent.

What we actually do with them is probably likely to be the result of long discussion.

Now that we've been able to get input from more people, I suggest that in deference to WSC it might possibly be a good idea now to copy and continue this thread to the WP:NPP talk page, or make sub page for it there. Kudpung (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Musical Group BLPs

I've tried and failed to count the Musical group UBLPs, as the Category:Musical groups tree also includes "members of musical groups", so it's very hard to split them out without either changing the cat tree, or manually adding individual cats to AWB or similar. From a scan of the list, it doesn't seem like it is that significant though, maybe 100 at most. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks for looking, 100 = 0.5% which makes sense to me, and I agree it is only worth doing if there is an easy way to identify them. ϢereSpielChequers 16:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15