MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 12. |
Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) →Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atmospheric beast: new section |
||
Line 334: | Line 334: | ||
:That seems quite fine to me. Just tell me when you have removed the image. Thanks, <font color="navy">'''[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 03:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC) |
:That seems quite fine to me. Just tell me when you have removed the image. Thanks, <font color="navy">'''[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 03:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
::I've done it. The top of the page looks a little bare now... <font face="Impact">[[User:Apterygial|<font color="#006400">Aptery</font>]][[User talk:Apterygial|<font color="#006400">gial</font>]]</font> 05:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC) |
::I've done it. The top of the page looks a little bare now... <font face="Impact">[[User:Apterygial|<font color="#006400">Aptery</font>]][[User talk:Apterygial|<font color="#006400">gial</font>]]</font> 05:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atmospheric beast]] == |
|||
First, congratulations on getting a shiny new [[WP:ADMIN|mop]]. Reasonable close on this AFD though I recommended "blowing it up and starting over" ([[WP:NPASR]]). A "delete" resulting from that AFD would have been tainted. --[[User:Ron Ritzman|Ron Ritzman]] ([[User talk:Ron Ritzman|talk]]) 16:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:04, 29 August 2009
|
Section Header SPI problem
NW, I set up a dummy test of transcluding an SPI with section headers. Can you take a look at it and tell me if this looks like what happened when you transluded the BullRangifer SPI with the section headers into the SPI "waiting for clerk approval" page? These are dummy spis and the "awaiting SPI approval is in my sandbox". However, I did not dummy all the templates. so, please take a look here at the sandbox test transclusion I set up [1]. Is this is creating the same problem? Is the problem the sequence of the section headers doesn't make sense? Thanks --stmrlbs|talk 08:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yep that is exactly what happened when the case was transcluded onto the SPI subpage. NW (Talk) 13:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Some of the problems are because an SPI with section headers is interspersed with SPIs in the old format. What do you think of how this looks? [2] (the section divider doesn't have to be pink ;)) --stmrlbs|talk 19:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think the headers might have to be shifted down one (Level 2 headers to Level 3, etc.), except for the main one. Could you try that out? NW (Talk) 19:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- can you be a little more specific? so, you want 2.1 to be 2.2.1? how about "2 EGGLI ANDREOU_2"? do you want that to remain where it is? or do you want that to be 2.1?
- Perhaps it might be easier if you tell me how you would like the sectioning? Each user should start at what level? and the sections below each user be one level below? --stmrlbs|talk 20:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Quite honestly, I'm not too sure. You might want to ask a more technically adept member of the SPI team about this, because I'm not too sure. NW (Talk) 21:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Attempt One has problems because comment sections aren't subsections of their respective reports; Attempt Two solves that, but still has problems because reports are not subsections of their respective categories. As best I can tell, the hierarchy should be thus -- from the main page: page (L1), main category (L2), subcategory (L3); from the case subpage: case (L4), report (L5), comment section (L6).
Here's an example:
= Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations = == Open cases: awaiting Checkuser processing == === Awaiting Clerk approval === ==== BullRangifer ==== ===== Report date August 17 2009, 01:18 (UTC) ===== ====== Evidence submitted by Stmrlbs ======
Does that answer some questions? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- yes, that helps a lot. I changed it so that the section header levels would reflect what you indicated, but evidently the print is made very small for some reason. I will see if there is some way to override this.. perhaps bluntly by making enclosing the headers in <big></big>.. I don't know why this happens. You can see it happening here --stmrlbs|talk 02:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations, NuclearWarfare, on becoming an Admin. :) --stmrlbs|talk 20:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Sock investigation
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andreisme. How did you decide who should be named as the puppetmaster? Oldest account? SpinningSpark 20:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Pretty much. Normally, I would have kept it at the original name, but in this particular report, the results were too stale for a Checkuser to be established. NW (Talk) 20:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
ACC
Hey, sorry I appreciate you're pretty busy over at RfA right now but is there any chance you could reactivate my account on the ACC tool? I've had a pretty hectic few months and have been unable to use the tool, and I just tried to log in but since it's been more than 45 days, I can't use it. Cheers :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 12:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, it seems that not only were you suspended for inactivity, but you were also suspended for another reason: (Suspended by OverlordQ because "Please pop onto IRC so you can explain why you dropped req: 24280"). I'll unsuspend your account, but could you please read over WP:ACC/G before you handle a request? Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that was a while back, it ended up being a complete misunderstanding on my part regarding shared IP addresses and a dodgy decline I did. We sorted it a long time ago :) See this if you're interested. Thanks anyway. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 15:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Gotcha :) I unsuspended your account at ACC; good luck! NW (Talk) 15:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Cheers, best of luck with your RfA too. Looks pretty certain now though, but touch wood eh. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 16:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Gotcha :) I unsuspended your account at ACC; good luck! NW (Talk) 15:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that was a while back, it ended up being a complete misunderstanding on my part regarding shared IP addresses and a dodgy decline I did. We sorted it a long time ago :) See this if you're interested. Thanks anyway. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 15:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I have it disabled, due to my "popularity" on wikipedia. I just sent you one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Replied. NW (Talk) 01:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- And sent another. If you monitor your e-mails frequently, I'll stop these notifications. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- And one more. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- And sent another. If you monitor your e-mails frequently, I'll stop these notifications. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedian of the Day
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Bronzewiki_2.png/60px-Bronzewiki_2.png)
Note: You could also receive the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!
If you wish, you can add {{User:Midnight Comet/WOTD/UBX|August 25, 2009}} to your userpage.
Happy editing!
[midnight comet] [talk] 01:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:AIV - Thanks for the info!
Appreciate the feedback that you left here [3]. I am assuming that would be for vandalism related sock attacks only(?). BTW, good luck with your RFA "confirmation". Cheers! --CobraGeek The Geek 22:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's correct. For registered users, or if the IPs become too large of a problem, please file another SPI case. And thank you! NW (Talk) 22:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Unconstructive Edit
Thank you for your feedback on my edit but I am just not seeing how it was unconstructive. I thought that a list of people from the Nation of Islam who are significant, famous or otherwise noteworthy was better titled Notable versus noted. I surely is not a big deal and have no issues with it being reversed, but I am just curious about how it was percieved.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Elmmapleoakpine! I'm afraid that I was working too fast and I reverted your edit without meaning to. I have struck the warning from your talk page; you are free to undo my edit on Nation of Islam. My apologies, NW (Talk) 02:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Re:File:Zotov2.JPG
Off course it was created and published in Russia. I thought PD-Art tag would be more than enough considering the art age, but you also might know that antiquity copyright is extended in Russia to about 1944 (can check) vs. 1923 for US. Just for you to know why I always upload to WP rather than to commons - there are all kind of unexpected issues, which I can't easily track on commons, thus I wait for some time to settle those before moving the image. Should be no problem here though. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio
Hope you don't mind - verbatim copy of your excellent example of how to break it to them softly [4]. I cited you, but let me know if you'd rather I come up with my own version. However, I as I mentioned before - I can't imagine how you could have said it any better. I am only saddened now that the opposes continue to pile on, instead of just letting it die a quick and neutral death. 7 09:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's no problem at all. I too originally took that message from someone who I believe took it from someone, so we are just passing down the tradition of using that for NOTNOW RfAs. NW (Talk) 12:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Andrew Vinius
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Removal of PROD from Tootsie Duvall
Hello NuclearWarfare, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Tootsie Duvall has been removed. It was removed by Pablomismo with the following edit summary '(deprod - article needs improvement though.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Pablomismo 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) 12:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
Lol
I expect better from a soon-to-be admin. Lol - :) ceranthor 13:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? I see nothing wrong. ;) NW (Talk) 13:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Image deletion help
NW - I could use your help. You noticed that two of the pictures I put on the Illinois Wesleyan University Page were marked for speedy deletion because they don't have information on their copyright status. Now, I took the pictures myself, and they haven't ever been copywrited. What additions do I need to make to each picture to prevent their deletion? In the source description I listed that I created the work myself. Let me know, and I'll be happy to make the additions. Thanks! As you can see, I'm VERY new to editing. -RJ User:Republicofjosh01 11:22, 26 August 2009 (EST)
- No problem at all. At Wikipedia, we can only allow images are licensed under a copyright license that allow commercial and derivative works without prior permission. There are a myriad of tags that you can use, but I will explain the few basic tags you can add:
- {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} and {{GFDL}}: This allows anyone to use the image if the release their own work under the same license AND credit you as the original creator of the image.
- {{cc-by-3.0}}: This allows anyone to use the image if credit you as the original creator of the image.
- {{pd-self}}: Anyone can use this image without any condition.
- Just pick one of them and add it to the image, and you'll be set. I hope that helps, but if not, feel free to ask me for a further clarification. NW (Talk) 15:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Great! I'm working on it right now. -RJ User:Republicofjosh01 11:32, 26 August 2009 (EST)
you're an admin now
Congrats! :) — neuro(talk) 16:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) &page= My admin log
Congratulations! |
---|
It is my great pleasure to inform you that your Request for Adminship has closed successfully and you are now an administrator! Useful Links: |
— Rlevse • Talk • 16:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is great news, I'm so glad to see it was a success. And since I know you like scripts, you should try User:Plastikspork/admindash.js. You can install it either by include, or just cut and paste since it's a one-liner. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Congratulations! — Jake Wartenberg 16:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is great news, I'm so glad to see it was a success. And since I know you like scripts, you should try User:Plastikspork/admindash.js. You can install it either by include, or just cut and paste since it's a one-liner. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations NW. It's about time :-) Regards SoWhy 17:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, congrats! –Juliancolton | Talk 17:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
And thank you everyone! NW (Talk) 17:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Congrats! Great work!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- P.S Thanks for grabbing that vandal for me.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Congrats, just noticed you deleting something I'd prodded - good to see you're getting to work already. ;) ~ mazca talk 18:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Congrats Nuke! Thingg⊕⊗ 18:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- BOOOM!!!!---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Congrats! (Ok, so I couldn't think of something funny. So?! :) )Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, no! Does this mean you can delete my articles if I annoy you? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 10:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Congrats Nuke. Pmlineditor Talk 10:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, no! Does this mean you can delete my articles if I annoy you? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 10:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Congrats! (Ok, so I couldn't think of something funny. So?! :) )Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Bit late on the ball here, congratulations :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 16:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- And I am fashionably late (I hope) -- congratulations! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans
Hi there, I placed the page describing Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans. It was deleted. I didn't have a chance to edit, what was wrong specifically (Which sections were flagged). Was the entire piece article wrong? We are a valid non-profit and I have seen other non-profit pages on wikipedia. Please let me know what sections were specifically not conforming to the rules so I can correct them.
Thanks,
S~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfarkhan (talk • contribs) 18:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hello there! I deleted Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans because it was not in compliance with our advertising and neutral point of view guidelines. In addition, it was possibly a copyright violation. If you wish, I can email you the content, and you can recreate a page on the subject, if and only if your non-profit meets the notability criteria for organizations, if the article is written neutrally and if any conflict of interest does not impede you. I also advise you to read Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest and Wikipedia:Your first article before you begin. I hope this helps; feel free to reply if you need further assistance. Regards, NW (Talk) 18:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Vaccination
![]() |
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Slight fever might ensue, but overall, this is what you have to grow to accept. Benders Game 19:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Pshaw, admin vaccine is nothing. Wait until you get the crat vaccine; they always use the same needle. :) Anyway, congrats, I know you'll do well. Just don't be hasty and perhaps you might not need a booster shot. bibliomaniac15 22:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Roman Catholic Diocese of Civita Castellana
Yes, sorry, I had explained the reason to speedy-delete in the talk page of the redirect to be deleted, probably not the best place to do it. I want to move Roman Catholic Diocese of Cività Castellana onto the article with the same title but for the accent in "Cività", because "Civita" is the correct spelling (see Civita Castellana and the sources in both articles). Or can you exchange main article and redirect? Thanks, [[::User:Goochelaar|Goochelaar]] ([[::User talk:Goochelaar|talk]]) 20:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh sure. I have deleted the redirect and moved the article for you; tell me if I did something wrong. NW (Talk) 20:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Fine, thanks! [[::User:Goochelaar|Goochelaar]] ([[::User talk:Goochelaar|talk]]) 20:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Cnilep nominated both pages for deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Crowe and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character Nine. Feel free to respond there.--David - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter). 21:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Careful with those new tools
Earlier today you deleted a bunch of expired PRODs, which is all fine and good except for one thing - many for them weren't expired yet! PRODs are expected to run a minimum of 7 full days, not 6 and half. Its not the end of the world, as I will simply restore anything that I find to be notable, but it does make patrolling them more time consuming. Please be more careful in the future.
When I looked at your log, I also saw a bunch of R3 deletions done in batch. They appear to have all been craeted by User:Tyciol back in 2008. This user appears to have a history of making questionable redirects, but very few of these actually fit into r3 even if they had been recently created.
R3 only applies to implausible typos and clearly invalid redirects. For example, The Criminal Code of Canada redirecting to Criminal Code of Canada isn't very useful but it isn't an R3 candidate either. Others were clearly appropriate such as What You See which redirects from a song title to the album on which it was found.
In short, you shouldn't be blindly batch deleting every redirect the user made just because he has made a lot of bad ones. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, are you sure about the Prods? I went through the category, and I thought I only deleted things that clearly said "This article may be deleted without warning." On the other hand, I kind of tuned out the red box and only looked at the rationales after a while, so that indeed might be my fault.
- As for the batch deletion, I agree that The Criminal Code of Canada was a mistaken deletion. If you find any like those that I obviously made a mistake on, feel free to reverse it. However, there was a local consensus to count song --> album redirects as R3s, I believe. I can see if I can find that for you, if you wish. NW (Talk) 22:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I am sure about the PRODs. You deleted most of the Aug 19th prods at about 18:00 UTC. Many were expired, but some were up to 6 hours early. I also just now noticed that you added create protection to Loogaroo (which I have since restored as a contested prod). The page had only been created 3 times and the first one was completely unrelated and both the previous deleted version were nearly empty articles. The creations were in 2005, 2006, and 2008. Three times in 3 years isn't sufficient reason for create protection, esp. given the circumstances of the deletions. Additionally, it is probably best to make it semi-confirmed only rather than admin only unless you have reason not to.
- Clarification on the R3s: do you mean just for this particular user because redirecting a non-notable song is the normal way to handle such entries.
- P.S. Sorry to be such pain on your first day on the job. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, no, please continue. Better for me to learn of all my screwups now, so I can learn for the future. Thank you for the note on the prods; I shall be sure to keep your advice in mind.
- And yes, these R3s were for this specific user only, I do believe. NW (Talk) 23:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- If it makes you feel any better, Thaddeus whacked me for doing the exact same thing on the not-yet-expired PRODs. The key is to make sure the text has turned red. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Just thought I'd leave this talkback message as I've replied to a concern on my talk page. — Σxplicit 22:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia entry for "Loogaroo"
Hello,
I saw that you deleted a talk page for this entry and decided to contact you with a suggestion/question hybrid. This has to do with information provided about the Loogaroo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loogaroo. I'm afraid this is entirely wrong, the author of the page seems to have his/her mythical creatures confused, the content description seems to refer to a Soucriant/Soucouyant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soucriant, rather than a Loogaroo/Lougarou, which invariably is male, and while a creature of the night, definitely NOT a vampire.
I'm new to Wiki editing and wanted to pursue the proper channels for correcting the misinformation rather than just making wholesale changes.
Thanks
Aikibro (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
ACC
Hi. I noticed that you are in ACC right now. There is a request that I'm currently handling. The requester had a 2 month block and a history of vandalism. Should I create the account? BejinhanTalk 14:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- In this case, because the IP is no longer blocked, they still have the power to create new accounts without going through ACC. I would create in this case, as the IP is probably no longer an open proxy; ProcseeBot would have reblocked it if it was. NW (Talk) 14:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You're a bit slow
[5] I would expect at least twice that number by now ;) How dare you not be reckless enough! Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 16:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why not inaugurate your new, reckless self by clicking here :-) J.delanoygabsadds 16:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Great idea! Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 17:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. Click. NW (Talk) 20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pitching in at WP:RFPP
You rock [6]!! — Kralizec! (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Heads-up
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:NuclearWarfare_and_Persian_Empire –Juliancolton | Talk 21:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
No Consesnes on the AFD of Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat
Pal, I would like to discuss the No Consensus conclusion that you reached on the above AFD. It was evident from the tally that the Delete votes were more than the Keep, so I believe the result should have been a Delete. In addition to this, let me clarify that the position held by this gentleman in the bureaucratic hierarchy of my country Pakistan is not at all something extraordinary. Besides I am myself working in the same Grade of bureaucratic structure in another department and should then I be asking for a page for me as well?. He is just another brick in the bureaucratic wall. If this page stays then I am afraid a lot of other similar resumes will follow. I am discussing this with you as per procedures otherwise I would have enlisted a review request. I hope you will understand. My best. -- MARWAT 00:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please note that per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and Wikipedia:Consensus, AfDs are not a vote. With this particular AfD, I did not see a consensus either way for deletion or keeping the article, so the default was to keep the article. It did not help that the AfD was being heavily hit with sockpuppets, and that both sides were giving bad arguments during the discussion. If you disagree with me, feel free to renominate the article after a few weeks or request at review of my analysis at WP:DRV. NW (Talk) 00:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with the nominator Marwatt on the consensus built for deletion. Suppose all the users, including the nominator Marwatt is even using a Sock, it nevers turn an Un-notable into Notable. --WikipedianBug (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Me again, but not to complain this time. This AfD could have gone either way and your judgment to delete was reasonable. However, I am asking your permission to undelete it in order to merge the material into Cricket in Canada per Spaceman's suggestion.
Thank you, ThaddeusB (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Of course. I didn't see much to merge, but if you can find something, you are of course welcome to undelete the article. NW (Talk) 01:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, maybe I should think about adding one of those "if it is an uncontroversial admin action, feel free to reverse it" tags to my userpage. NW (Talk) 01:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted page Steven Walker
Good evening. I noted today that you deleted the page for "Steven Walker" and I wanted to ask if you could provide some clarification.
In the AfD discussion, the reasons for deletion that were suggested included vanity (which is patently false, since I am not the subject of the page), and that he is "just not notable", which is listed as an invalid justification for page deletion WP:JNN. Evidence to support the subject's non-notability was limited to "Podcast awards are not notable" and that the sources were considered unreliable, despite being provided from the Boston Globe, Sacramento Bee, Roanoke Times, and Runner's World. (Ironically, he was also interviewed by the BBC [1] today as well.)
I thought I had provided adequate information in response to these arguments, however, if I have misunderstood the process of AfD then I apologize. If you could help me understand why a subject that 'has created ... a well-known work (over 200 podcast episodes), that has been the subject of an independent of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews (references above) does not meet the criteria for notability under WP:PEOPLE (2.4.3), I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks Dwinches (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- The consensus of the discussion was that the subject was not notable. The issue with the reliable sources that you provided were that they were of a too trivial sort for inclusion, I believe. This, for example, has a tiny amount of information on the discussion. In any case, as the closing administrator, I cannot simply overrule the consensus formed there, which was that the article is indeed not notable. However, I can undelete and "userfy the article for you, and if you change it enough that notability is more clearly established, you can ask me or another administrator to look it over, and we will move it into the mainspace for you. I hope this helps, NW (Talk) 02:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Braintree AFD
Hey - I noticed that you closed an AFD earlier, only to revert the close. Any particular reason to keep this one open? It looks like the article has already been deleted, but the AFD is still there and the broken redirects are still in place. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- What happened was that I accidentally closed the AfD far too early, and I wanted to give it time to run to the full 7 days. I thought I had undeleted it earlier, but I was getting database errors around that time, so perhaps I didn't. The article should be undeleted now (but likely only temporarily until the AfD closes). NW (Talk) 15:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good to me - thanks! UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK for My Boy Jack (film)
NW (Talk) 17:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hahaha, you gave credit to yourself. :-) Vicenarian (Said · Done) 17:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
day late dollar short but HERE
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy: |
|
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL. |
ACC
Hey,
I would like to request that the suspension on my account at ACC be lifted. I have discussed with User:Funpika but he has not been able to reply. There is discussion on his talk page. Thanks.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, before I re-grant your access, I want to know if you understand your mistakes. Could you please explain them to me in your own words, and how you have improved? NW (Talk) 21:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think my main mistake was misunderstanding what Matt said. He said he was assuming good faith, I should have waited for him to deal with it before I assumed that he meant for us to create the account under WP:AGF. the only way to deal with this, and to make sure that it never happens again is to just stay away from all requests that are marked as handled unless the user is asking for input.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Access restored. NW (Talk) 21:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Access restored. NW (Talk) 21:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think my main mistake was misunderstanding what Matt said. He said he was assuming good faith, I should have waited for him to deal with it before I assumed that he meant for us to create the account under WP:AGF. the only way to deal with this, and to make sure that it never happens again is to just stay away from all requests that are marked as handled unless the user is asking for input.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I just found a new sock while I was cleaning up. I don't think we need a checkuser for the new one.—Kww(talk) 00:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Seeing as these image concerns seem to be the only thing holding up Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rudolf Caracciola/archive1, I was thinking that I could just remove the image for now (I think the other images should be OK) and when I think I've got the problem fixed I'll check with you before I put it back in. Cheers, Apterygial 01:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- That seems quite fine to me. Just tell me when you have removed the image. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
First, congratulations on getting a shiny new mop. Reasonable close on this AFD though I recommended "blowing it up and starting over" (WP:NPASR). A "delete" resulting from that AFD would have been tainted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)