This is an archive of past discussions about User:SoWhy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Just curious - it seems db-A7 has been expanded recently to include articles besides biographies. The deletion drop down now says "No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion." Wouldn't Paturis Park qualify for "not meeting the guidelines"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs)20:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
It was wrongly deleted via AfD in the first place, citing that it was in violation of WP:CRYSTAL, despite the fact it's already been released, rated, covered and commented on. So I remade the article, rewriting it entirely from scratch because the original was a few sentences of plot information and nothing more, so that it was all nice, proper, sourced. Then I went to bed at 2am and evidently it was speedy deleted between then and this morning before I had a chance to do anything. So it'd be pretty cool if you could restore it, thanks. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
But the article wasn't deleted because of non-notability or anything like that, it was deleted because it was "speculative", which is obviously wrong because it came out six months ago. If you're not going to restore it, could you please put the deleted content I wrote into my userspace? I'm guessing I'm going to need it to show to the deletion review people. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I can do that but you should first contact MBisanz (talk·contribs) if he is willing to change the AfD result. If he refuses and you want to go to deletion review, just tell me where you want the copy to be placed (in your userspace) and I will do so. Regards SoWhy21:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I fulfilled those requests, I will leave the others to the respective protecting admins (have to go now anyway^^). Regards SoWhy10:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Putinism
Dear friend. I've decided to write you about the article Putinism. You have rejected the idea to delete this article from Wikipedia. However, this article contains nothing but crazy conspiracy theories that each Russian is working in FSB and so on. For example, please read this quote from the article.
Former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy shares similar ideas. When asked "How many people in Russia work in FSB?", he replied: "Whole country. FSB owns everything,
I think that you realize that this is quite crazy theory, and such crazy theories should not be presented in Encyclopedia. I do not know much about Wikipedia guidelines, so I ask you to help me and Wikipedia and promote the deletion of this article. Thank you. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
It is apparent that you have no idea. The article is about the term and how it is used by other people. This is an encyclopedia and not a pro-Russia site, so it is quite possible for us to represent what other people say and do. And apparently they use this term. I declined speedy deletion as it does not fit into the criteria you selected. You are free to pursue deletion at articles for deletion but I strongly advise you read the deletion policy first. Regards SoWhy15:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I do not nominate this article for speedy deletion. You can see from the history of that article, that this was done by other user. However, I have seen this fact in the history, I've seen that you did not agree with that user, I've seen that you're the administrator, and have decided to appeal directly to you. Certainly, this is not a pro-Russian site. It will be very bad for English or even Russian Wikipedia to be pro-Russian. Wikipedia have to be just the source of knowledge, nothing more, nothing else. But also, this is not a site for distributing conspiracy theories, because crazy conspiracy theories disrupt the Wikipedia being represented in it. Only very limited number of prominent conspiracy theories should be represented in Wikipedia, in the special articles, and with very necessary criticism of that theories. Do you agree with assertion that «each Russian is working in FSB» is a crazy conspiracy theory? Do you agree that it is impossible at all? Do you agree that such theories, being represented in Wikipedia, disrupt the Wikipedia? I will not pursue this article for deletion without your help. I hope that you, as administrator, will help me to make Wikipedia better. Regards. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 15:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
The things you mention are citations, clearly in context. There is nothing wrong with citations. I do not think this article disrupts Wikipedia any more than other articles do and I will not help you getting this article deleted. If you think this article can be improved, be bold and do so. My job ended with assessing this article within the criteria of speedy deletion and I have no further knowledge nor the rights to make any decision on whether it should be deleted or not. Admins are not a special kind of user in any sense other than their technical abilities, so if you think something should be deleted, nominate it for deletion yourself. The whole community decides about it then. Regards SoWhy17:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear colleague SoWhy! Merry Christmas! Sorry, I trouble you in these days. Obviously, the article Putinism is one-colour (black) and anti-neutral. I am in opposite to putinism, but on my opinion such style of article isn't useful, it presents enwiki as anti-Russian site. I have not any time to edit this article, but I ought to say my opinion. Best regards, — Iurius (talk), 08:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC).
Your decline on limited protection to craps is unfortunate. The history of the page is one revert after another from vandalism. Declining for no recent activity does not imply the vandalism will stop. Its just spread out. Had you looked at the history of the article you'd see that. For god sakes man the game is called craps. Protect it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickyar (talk • contribs) 18:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, you should review the protection policy. We do not protect with so little activity (three times in a week? Other articles have three vandalism edits per hour!), so the decline was what the policy describes as the correct way. I am sorry, but we do not protect because vandalism may occur more frequently, only if it really does. Regards SoWhy18:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Done and done. I deleted the History-one afterwards as I didn't think it to be a likely search term worth leaving a redirect. You can create it again if you like. Regards SoWhy00:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The sources are given, visible, and reliable. The ones who warned me claimed even more nonsense - the lyrics is copyrighted - without any evidence and even though being warned that a crime hate text is not copyrightable. Please, be civil and remove this meaningless protection.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
BROWNIES!
Fresh out of the oven!
Hello! Thanks for taking the time to let me know about the speedy decline. I tend to use the (a7) as a catch-all when I know that it would fail an AfD anyway!(Enjoy the brownies...they're sugar free!)--Sallicio17:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome and thanks for the brownies. Remember, if you think something will be uncontroversially deleted but is not a person, organisation or web content, WP:PROD is the way to go :-) SoWhy18:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I always hoped to receive a barnstar that I created ;-) PS: You are doing a nice job there as well SoWhy21:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Well well well, be applauded for your sharp eyes. I looked through a bunch of edits but I missed those. Nice one :-) SoWhy22:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Your point? Locking down an article for vandalism is a pretty hard decision and it is not really an option when only one such edit happens. You can request it at WP:RFPP when blocking is not an option anymore. Currently it still is. Regards SoWhy12:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The WWE Championship
I watched youtube a few minutes ago. When I watched the John Cena/Randy Orton contract signing, the centerpiece of the WWE Championship is upside down. Randy Orton then puts it in the table and turns it downside up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paoloching (talk • contribs) 11:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Now I understand. I guess not all administrators are apt to explain to us lowly editors why they are right and we are wrong. Thank-you. Bcspro (talk)
There are no lowly editors and no admin is "better" because they are an admin. Just remember to assume good faith towards everyone - like all editors, even admins will usually not do things out of spite but for good reasons (or what they think are good reasons). Have a nice evening. Regards SoWhy17:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
You are right (no sarcasm this time) my apologies. I just hate it when I feel like I have no value against administrators and other editors. Happy Holidays! Bcspro (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through the AfD procedure, but something seems to have gone wrong. My description of why I think it should be deleted is attached to someone else's Elert Bode nomination, and I can't get it out again. I had to re-run adding mine to the list because someone moved Molly Conlin in before I got finished. Then mine appeared without a title, and then this happened! Could you have a look? Please? Ta if you can. Peridon (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed your move of Ray Mallock Ltd. to Ray Mallock on my watchlist, and I have to say I'm a bit confused as to why. First, this move seems to me to confuse the read with whether or not the article is on the person or the company that person founded. Ray Mallock should cover the person, another title should cover the company. Second, although I understand the naming convention, the "Ltd." is clearly part of the company's name, as they are always known by the abbreviation RML - Ray Mallock Ltd./Limited. However, I think a better option might be to move the article to RML Group, since that is what their website currently names the entire grouping of individual companies. The article, as it stands now, does best describe the group as a whole instead of just the RML Motorsport team or just Ray Mallock himself. The359 (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I just fulfilled a request, but I agree with your reasoning. Per the naming conventions the correct title is probably Ray Mallock (company). You can request a correction using {{db-move}} but you should talk to Mauls (talk·contribs) first who requested the move in the first place, so we can avoid re-taggings and more unnecessary moves. Maybe you can work out a correct title together. Regards SoWhy21:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it was the same content. The episode was aired on October 26, and the deletion was made on October 21. Edenc1 • Talk22:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, the article was deleted because it consisted only of plot details and guest stars and the latter one I deleted today differed from the last deletion only in that the plot section was actually shorter but otherwise it looked pretty the same. Regards SoWhy22:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for the opportunity for me to leave you a note. Here it is: just leave alone the part after (UTC time) "The attacks are done in self defiance response against Hamas launching of mortars and rockets." This information is true and correct. The statement is the objective of the Operation Cast Lead based on multiple resources.
I semi-protected the article for 3 days, but I will leave the other protection standing. Some IPs tried copy-paste moves there, so protecting the redirect probably saves us lots of work. Regards SoWhy22:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Sea Containers
Hello, I'm curious why you deleted the disambiguation page for Sea Containers and moved Sea Containers Ltd over it? The Ltd is a company, whereas Sea containers is a term. I do not believe this properly falls under G6, as this is not controversial, and Sea Containers the company is different than Sea Containers the ISO shipping unit, and the other items listed on the page. Most people don't think of ISO container when they are looking at sea containers... I know I don't, and I've worked in a business with ISO containers. —Cliffb (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Because at the time of the request, there was a redirect not a disambig page at that location. The move was because the company article was incorrectly named (things like "Ltd" or "Inc" are not to be appended) and thus it was removed. You are free to reorder the articles so that Sea Containers redirects to ISO container which in turn then uses {{redirect}} to point to a newly moved Sea Containers (company) but I rather think you should not do that. sea containers would be the usual search term (notice the capitalisation) not Sea Containers, so you should rather turn that into a disambiguation/redirect page. Regards SoWhy10:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
User
He has been blocked for warring against four editors at the same articlee about two days ago. After the block expired, he came back to do the same. That's why I thought page protection would force him to communicate. Squash Racket (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but protection per protection policy should be used only when other methods fail. Here we have an editor who is clearly unwilling to talk and get the hint from the block, so I do not see why they would start talking in case of protection. It is rather more sensible to block this single editor from editing than to block all editors from editing the article just because of one user who wanted to disrupt. Otherwise such people could get the whole project protected by edit warring. Regards SoWhy11:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:ANEW can be used for such cases as well. It is edit-warring, no matter if they break 3RR or not, so I'd suggest you take it there (I am not that familiar with WP:ANEWs modus operandi). Regards SoWhy08:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Why was this page deleted?!!! Sponto was an iconic man who just passed and his memory deserves to be documented. BRING IT BACK!
~Amy Hamaoui, Citizendium —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.11.142 (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I only decided on the three you listed last, all of which were only created once. I see your point, but I think we should just let the DRV finish and the CU case become resolved. Once that is completed, we can decide further steps - which are hopefully not needed if the user in question is banned for SPing and those articles all re-deleted. I see no point in taking further action now when there is no further creation of those articles. Regards SoWhy22:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
First off, I believe you refer to G4, not G6 - recreation of deleted material. And yes, it is policy - in a way. All speedy deletion requests are subject to an admin decision and the reviewing admin may decide to not delete a page even if one or more tags apply. I generally believe that consensus can change and thus an old consensus may not represent the current consensus. See also this essay on that. Regards SoWhy23:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. You can obviously decided to ignore speedy tags even when the speedy tags are correct, but you cannot remove speedy tags if the speedy tags are correct. Best, --brewcrewer(yada, yada)00:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Removing speedy tags if I decide not to delete an article based on the right to decide that WP:CSD gives me is the way to show that I decided to decline speedy deletion. I am sorry to have to lecture you on this, but it is common practice that any administrator can decide to decline a valid speedy deletion tag and remove it. After all, if I just ignored the tag, how will my decision have any impact? The next admin to see it will maybe make a different decision and my decision is completely ignored then. I might just delete it myself then. So please forgive me for telling you this, but I do have a bit of experience in these matters and I think I know what I am allowed to do or what not. After all, the article you are referring to has a very interesting deletion log: You yourself decided in June 2008 to tag it for PROD instead of speedy deletion, so are you actually telling me that you made a mistake that time? I think you acted correctly back then and applied a system that allows others to give input before deletion (although not very much). My rationale is that the old decision of a mid-2007 consensus might not apply anymore when it had comments "has not yet played". So when the old consensus was for deletion based on missing notability and the new article makes claims of notability, I think the old consensus might not apply anymore and thus the article should not be speedy deleted. Regards SoWhy12:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I see you enjoy lectures, so I'll offer one myself: WP is not a vehicle for you to "to show that [you] decided" anything or for your "decision[s to] have any impact". There are greater issues here. Your language is most troubling because it sounds like this whole admin this has gotten to you head. As for experience in speedy deletion, the sites that check edit history stats are down right now, but I strongly suspect that I have more experience with speedies then you. However, I am happy to see that you retreated from your original rationales ("a year and a half has past" and "I can do what I want") to offer a more sensible and policy based explanation. Indeed, since he began playing it makes sense to say that the consensus has changed. Best, --brewcrewer(yada, yada)16:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I hate lectures, that's why I asked you to forgive me for them. I am sorry if you think that adminship has gone to my head, I assure you that I will always defend WP:NBD and that I have not and will think myself "better" than any other user just because I got a bunch of extra buttons. My explanation was not to claim any more rights to decide based on my own "ineffability" (at least I didn't intend it to sound like it). I just wanted to outline how WP:CSD offers admins a right to decline valid speedy deletion requests and that I have to remove the template to do so. Otherwise, how could I? That's what I meant with "how will my decision have any impact". I do not claim to be correct in all matters, far from it, but since you are the first user ever to tell me I do not have the right to decline valid speedy deletion requests (which I did all my (albeit still short) admin "career"), I assumed this means most people agree with it. Sure, I can be wrong, who can't?
As for the article in question, I said so in my first response above already that I think consensus may have changed. After all, I thought you read the AfD yourself and thus must know why the old consensus does not fit the current article. But I will remember to explain more in future to avoid such misunderstandings. Regards SoWhy16:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Redirects of non-notable America's Next Top Model contestants
I know pre-emptive protection isn't encouraged, but seeing as the new Doctor is announced tomorrow (5:35pm), and given how excited Doctor Who fans get, it may be prudent to keep an eye on the articles... Sceptre(talk)16:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Edokter (talk·contribs) semi-protected it until May 1, 2009 already. I got it watchlisted but I think most of the regular DW-contributors here will not change that content without a good source, so I think we can leave it like that for now. I'll have a look at it tomorrow evening and I am sure one of the admins working at WP:DW will protect it if necessary. Regards SoWhy18:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
If I'm quick enough, I will add the actor first, and then reference the DWC episode. Hopefully my clout extends so far as to get away with an unreferenced fact for a few minutes. Sceptre(talk)21:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, you can pre-write the <ref>-tag today and then copy+paste it. Another question is, do you plan on turning the redirect into an article? I mean apart from the actor, there is nothing else to add. Also, most activity will probably be at Doctor Who and Doctor (Doctor Who). Regards SoWhy21:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I explained the situation to Willking1979, though not to yourself, and apologise for that. I can see why you would mistake my edits as vandalism, I was actually reverting a disruptive user with a CoI that has repeatedly reinserted contentious information into the article against the wishes of the rest of the editors working on the article, who are in the process of overhauling it. The vandal has been persistant, so it slipped my mind to add edit summaries on this occasion. Please see the talk page of the article for more background if interested. --88.108.243.214 (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I had this editor here (see section above) and I am not deciding who is mistaken. I just restored the warning as it looked like a mistake by Willking1979 to remove the warning that another user has placed. You are hereby reminded to stop edit-warring though as you have done on Stuart Campbell (journalist), no matter who you think is right or wrong. The constant reverting by both IP parties is disruptive and you will be blocked for it if you continue, no matter why you do it. Regards SoWhy15:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I ce'd the translations a bit, just three minor errors: "nochmal" means "again"; "Sie" only means (formal) "you" when the s is capitalized, otherwise it's third person plural, "they"; and "Zeit" in the context of "Diese Zeit" probably refers to "this period of time" or "this era". "This time" would be said in German as "dieses mal" (e.g. "dieses mal war es in München" would translate as "this time it was in Munich"). If you need more help, just ask. Regards SoWhy12:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Refusal of protection for reasons given accepted, but please do warn the user in question (88.108.243.214), who has continued to simply repeat the same malicious edits (now four times, breaching the three-revert rule) while refusing to enter any debate on the Discussion page. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the three-revert-rule forbids more than 3 reverts within 24 hours, which has not happened here. I see where you are going, but this is not a simple case of 3RR-violation or vandalism. You can warn the user yourself but I doubt that has any effect, given the warnings they received in the edit summaries. I'd suggest you take it to WP:ANI and explain the problem there, more discussion will only benefit it. Regards SoWhy11:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I have actually discussed the issue on the talk page, and the reverts I've made have been to the version prior to 83.67.217.135's additions, which have been contentious, unsupported by citations, and mainly opposed by other editors. --88.108.243.214 (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Might be, it's not important though. Edit-warring is disruptive, no matter why you do it and if you see that reverting has no effect, you should not continue. Regards SoWhy15:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The comments above are untrue, as is almost everything this editor has said. The passages concerned were added long before this editor appeared. This is a matter of record. The editor's comments about prior consensus are also demonstrably untrue from the slightest examination of the discussion page. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
School vandalism from a range, again
Last month you blocked for a month a range of addresses used by schools in the "Yorkshire & Humber Grid for Learning" which were doing co-ordinated vandalism. That expired on Jan 2; the new term has now started, and they're at it again: 89.207.208.3 has already been blocked 48 hrs and .2, .6 and .9 have been warned. Perhaps a 3 month range block to take them past this term? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, yes, children...our future. Or so they say. We had a week rangeblock, then a month, so your suggestion was the next logical step to take. I soft-blocked the range again. Regards SoWhy13:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. As a range-block doesn't seem to leave any record in the block log, would it be useful for me to leave on the relevant talk pages a notice like:
"Due to repeated vandalism IP addresses 89.207.208.1 to .15, registered to the Yorkshire and Humberside Grid for Learning, have been blocked from editing for three months. Further vandalism after the block expires will result in a longer block. Users who wish to make constructive contributions are encouraged to create an account - see the notice at the head of this page."
Hello, I think I got a consensus at Talk:Homeopathy#Quin. Nobody has opposed my proposed changes to the article, and some editors approve of them. Can you get the protection back to semi so I can give it a try? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I unprotected the article, citing WP:SILENCE as noone opposed your proposed changes implies consensus. There was no semi-protection when I protected it, so I did not restore it to it. You may want to request it at WP:RFPP if vandalism occurs significantly. Regards SoWhy07:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Re your deletion of the article titled Selvan Saha due to copyright infringement, I represent Aurora Global Markets Ltd and we are happy for you to publish the information from our website. If you want to further clarify, please feel free to contact any of the directors of AGM through the website. Provided you are happy with this, please un-delete this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.189.130 (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Declining an RFPP request such as that and then doing nothing to follow it up is absolutely pointless. It would be much more useful to either decline it and go on to warn/block the users involved, or to leave it open for someone who will do both. No surprise, things have now carried on exactlyastheywerecompletelyunheeded.
It's incredibly discouraging to non-admins who take the time out to report something they've seen in passing but don't have the tools to solve. Please could you either follow-through on this, or leave it open for someone who will - the current "solution" is leaving the articles continually damaged. Best wishes, Knepflerle (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
While I understand your sentiment, please consider that all admins are volunteers as well. My primary consideration is the request at hand and how it fits with the protection policy. I did not fit, so I declined, suggesting an alternative path. Both have been warned for edit warring before and you could have listed them at WP:ANEW which would have taken care of the problem without having to protect the article. As you are unwilling to warn or report those users yourself, I have issued each of them a final warning [4][5] regarding this behavior and I will block them if I can but you may report them as well if they continue. Regards SoWhy18:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, it looks like you declined a speedy on this article, and it got deleted three minutes later. I temporarily restored it in order to look at it, because the editor queried it on Mattisse's talk page, not sure why there. I'll leave it up to you whether to redelete or not, I take no position on it. Hope I haven't stepped out of line.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes, sometimes things get crazy. I did review the article again and the deletion was probably correct although the deleting admin is in a conflict of interest as he was the one who put it up for deletion in 2006. I reviewed it on grounds of A7, so I declined it on that but I read the AfD now and the reasons and consensus still apply, so I redeleted it. Thanks for the caring and the info though, I appreciate it :-) SoWhy21:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Mr Deleteman here. I think "conflict of interest" above is a bit strong, but I'm thick-skinned and agree with the gist of what you're saying in that part of the paragraph, as well as in the paragraph as a whole. I'll add that I've repeatedly suggested to the author of the article that she should take the matter to DRV. (Normally she'd ask the admin who closed the AfD, but he's dropped out.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is. You wanted the article gone and thus you are of course biased against recreations. That's natural, nothing more and I'd let someone else delete such articles for me so that noone gets that impression. So no offense meant by that. Regards SoWhy10:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Uh huh. I'd add that in the way that the word "interest" is used in the term "conflict of interest", I have no interest whatever either in Sabal or in any of his actual or potential rivals. Neither an article about him nor the deletion of an article about him can conceivably benefit me in any way. (In the general sense of the word "interest", I also have next to no interest in Sabal, but this is by the way.) And I don't think that any "bias" of mine against recreations is any stronger than is WP policy, at least as I understand the latter. -- Hoary (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I deleted that one on grounds of CSD#A7 which has a much lower standard that notability (especially WP:BIO). Not because the subject is not notable but because the article made no indication that it could be notable. Those you named here probably fail A7 because they contain enough information to make notability claims. To get them deleted, you'D have to use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead, I cannot decide on them. Regards SoWhy10:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Flagged Revs
Hi,
I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk)07:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Block
Please block indefinitly this user, because he has vandalize articles, 100000 times, violating the NPOV, being aggressive, and violating the edit-warnings completely:
I left the user the same warning that I left you. I will follow WP:BLOCK and I blocked them for 24h on Wednesday for edit-warring. I monitor their contributions, as well as I do monitor yours, and I will do what is necessary. If you think more is necessary, you may take it to WP:ANI but I will not indefinitely block this user at this point as I think that everyone just wants to edit contructively. Regards SoWhy18:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, i am sorry, but this edit ([7]) is SO not constructive that it is unthinkable. It is complete disregard of the wiki rules!! Please, just see those two samples i shown. They tell sufficient...
I am up to a ANY kind of arrangement, but i think that this user, together with his edits, are unneeded in the Wikipedia.
Well, of course you would, after all, it's you who they are reverting. I do what the policies of Wikipedia allow and advise me to do in this case. I suggest you engage in dispute resolution instead of screaming for blocks for someone who you are in a dispute with. Regards SoWhy19:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
HI, I didn't realize that there was a full-on edit war o appreciate you protecting it, however, we have indeed saved the wrong version. There seems to be a sock of sort who wanted to add, amongst other things,
Michael Brandon is a notorious drug addict and criminal. He has been convicted of numerous felonies of drug dealing and related violent crimes. As a result, he has spent most of his life in and out of prison. Oddly, for a period of about 5 1/2 years (1999-2005), Brandon managed to get clean and sober and rise to great fame as a gay porn actor known for his 10 1/2 inch penis which was nicknamed, 'Monster.' By mid 2005, however, the inner-spiritual demon of a monster began to take over again.
This clearly violates BLP and was why both the other editor and myself were oppose to using it as written. Could you please revert to a policy-compliant version instead? -- Banjeboi00:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Refusal to grant semi-protection on NeverShoutNever! article
There have been two occurrences of vandalism just today. I don't understand how that doesn't qualify as recent activity. In fact there has been vandalism on the NeverShoutNever! page by various IP addresses for three days in a row now. Please reconsider. --Russ is the sex (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Because there have only been five instances of vandalism in five days, which is not really much. Any kind of protection should not be used, if other means are possible and only if reverting is too taxing. See the protection policy for details. Regards SoWhy09:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Help With User Page
I'd like to completely remove all references to my user page and I need to know what can be done about it. Quite frankly, I don't want to edit or even use Wiki anymore just because of the amount of people who log in and use my computer. Please help me and let me know what I can do, as I'd greatly appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srtdeagle84 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry but you cannot delete all references to your username as that would mean to remove your edits to articles which would conflict with the GFDL under which the content was licensed. I do not see any need to do so anyway, just stop editing. SoWhy11:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You deleted a good three hours of work done in good faith. I can't even look at the logs to see who tagged it for speedy now. I understand the artist page did not exist, I was in the process of transcribing the de article. The group is notable, they were a 1-hit wonder in Europe in the 90s. Certainly more notable than most of the fancruft indie band articles that get 1,000 Google search hits on a good day but have expansive and impressive write-ups here. Can you please undo the deletion? Thanks. §FreeRangeFrog18:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. The deletion was not only because the artist page did not exist but because the article itself made no claim of notability, so I could not know that. I restored it now, no harm done. Btw, you can link de-wiki entries using [[:de:Articlename]] instead of external links ;-) Regards SoWhy20:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, could you possibly reinstate the NPOV tag since there is quite a dispute about it on the talk page. It seems to have been there until today and there certainly seems to be a majority who feel the article breaks NPOV even if there is no consensus on how to tackle it. Might also be an idea to note at the top of the article that it is locked since I had a few changes prepared and only found out it was locked when I couldn't find the edit button. Thanks. Landed little marsdon (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
First off, I'd appreciate it if you linked the article you are talking about. I deal with a large number of protection requests daily and cannot remember all of them. I guess you refer to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts? You are correct, I tagged it with the correct protection tag (I forgot earlier), which states the reason for protection. Regards SoWhy20:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not mind if you or any other admin lift the protection if the reasons for edit-warring have ceased to exist or at least if edit-warring stops. I protected it as a request at WP:RFPP to deal with the symptoms of the problem but I lack time to assess the reasons for it so I'd be glad if you handle unprotection once needed. Regards SoWhy23:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll keep an eye on it. :) And yes, I saw that you were acting in response to a RFPP request, so your actions were reasonable. I do, however, have some concerns about the editor who made the initial request, as it appears he may have been doing so in bad faith. There have been some problems with tag-teaming in the topic area, and the editor who made the request may have been acting in support of a teammember. He had neither edited the article nor participated in substantive discussions at the talkpage, but showed up to revert the article (with Twinkle) and then immediately make a request (with Twinkle) for page protection on his version. And though he had seen fit to revert the page, he still didn't join the talkpage discussions. I've had a word with him about this practice, and if he continues reverting without discussion there (or anywhere else), it may be time to impose some Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. For now though, it's probably best to just leave the protection in place and see if things calm down a bit. --Elonka00:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
School vandalism from a range, again..
Sorry to bother you again about these silly children in Yorkshire and Humberside, but would you consider semi-protecting the talk pages of user talk:89.207.208.3 (particularly), user talk:89.207.208.6 and user talk:89.207.208.10 ? Since you blocked the range for 3 months they are continuing silly vandalism on their talk pages like this and this. It has obviously become a game; I have considered just leaving them to it rather than reverting, but I think if they were unable to edit at all for a time they might lose interest in vandalising and there might be some hope that when the range is unblocked they won't return. Semi-protecting would mean they couldn't post an unblock request, but I can't see how one could be acceptable; if you like I will post a notice about how to email to unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Instead of protecting the talk page, I changed the block settings for the rangeblock so the IP cannot edit its own talk pages anymore. As said before, {{schoolblock}} informs them about the unblock-possibilities in that case. Regards SoWhy18:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleting a page from Wikipedia and Google searches
Hi SoWhy,
Thanks for the response to my enquiry. You wrote:
"You can only request deletion on Wikipedia (by following the guidelines for deletion) but there is nothing you or we can do to remove it from Google, you need to contact Google for that."
Google advises to put the following HTML in the page, if I don't want it to be picked by the robot.
<meta name="robots" content="noindex">
Is there a way that I can get this HTML to be put on a page in my User Space or in the Sandbox ? Regards, Mvanwaveren (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC+1)
You can add the template {{NOINDEX}} for that purpose. It will disable further indexing but not remove the current search results until Google re-indexes the page to encounter it. Regards SoWhy13:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
A workaround: Temporarily replace the page with something that's okay to index until Google picks it up, then restore it and add the noindex tag. You may want to leave the temporary page up long enough so all the major indexing bots grab the version you want them to index. A few weeks should be enough. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
You mean {{db-author}}? It was a correct use at least, as the user was the only author of substantial content. But I see your point, so I restored it for now. We can still delete it per other means after all if needed. Regards SoWhy14:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Obama Sprot
Thanks for doing that - indef semi protection is defintely called for and appreciated by the regular editors there. Cheers Tvoz/talk17:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. I just restored it from the Nov 5, 2008 protection after it was lost with temporary full-protection. I doubt any admin will assume that an article with such a protection history should not be semi-protected. SoWhy17:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Ha - well, nothing would surprise me, but I am hopeful that reason will prevail. Sprot doesn't stop the garbage, but it does significantly slow them down, and there is no reason to wait until they strike to protect. Tvoz/talk18:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
db-move is the correct way, I just meant that there might be some reason the article does not exist at the seemingly correct place. As you point out now, your reasoning is sound, which is why I performed the move now and merged the histories of both articles so that no content is lost. Regards SoWhy10:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.
Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.
Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better.
Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
As I am currently on my way through The New Jedi Order, I understand perfectly. But you probably might want to consider glasses (or better glasses) if you read "sth" as "sith" ;-) SoWhy11:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
What...The...Fuck?! Thanks for telling me so fast, I have no idea why that happened. I use a script to localize sig timestamps when viewing them but I don't know why it did that. Maybe because of the edit conflict I got into? I will be more careful, thanks again. Regards SoWhy15:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for fixing it so fast! I think an edit conflict is the most likely explanation - they do produce some very strange results sometimes. DuncanHill (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, you're right, I just edit-conflicted myself and it does indeed screw up the timestamps. Thanks again for the notice :-) SoWhy15:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe worth mentioning it to the author of the script (and I am sure I posted that already, but can't find it in history or contributions!) DuncanHill (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think I fixed it. The author already determined the problem in edit windows and seemed to have forgotten about edit conflicts. :-) Regards SoWhy15:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a score of sources which constitutes a claim that much was written about this person. I agree that notability probably does not exist but CSD is something where I'd rather be safe than sorry. After all, using WP:PROD will not hurt us in such cases. Regards SoWhy20:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
CSD
Hey, no problem. I looked at the article, it showed no implication of notability past the self-published site, so I speedied it again. I actually didn't know I had hit that article a second time. But, I'll be a little more watchful. Thanks for the heads up, and Cheers! Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you
Although I just noticed that this article has been kept, after I posted the below. I thought you would enjoy this information anyway. Best wishes. Ikip (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
This barnstar is awarded to SoWhy, for his efforts in saving articles for the benefit of wikipeida, thank you. Ikip (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the semi-protect. Suggest expiry in 90 minutes would be enough - it's probably just because he's on air at the moment. LondonStatto (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I lowered it a bit. Let's see if you are right, else you can re-request further protection. Regards SoWhy11:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi SoWhy - i've been asked to have a look at the dispute on Four Horsemen (Supreme Court), which you putb a full protection on. Perhaps, given that the controversy is mainly stemming from the actions of one anon, the best solution might be to semi-protect the page so that only registered users can edit it. That way either the problems will stop or the anon will be "flushed out into the open" by having to register. What do you think? Grutness...wha? 01:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC+1)
I disagree. I advocate (and have applied) semi-protection in cases where anon editors edit-war with other anon editors. In this case two registered users edit-warred against the anon user but the contributions of the IP were not vandalism but good-faith attempts at NPOV editing. Semi-protection to shut out the IP from editing is actually discouraged by the protection policy, so I acted upon that. Interesting enough only two editors are editing that page against the anon and discussing on the talk page, so I doubt any kind of good consensus can emerge, it needs some more participation. Personally, I do agree with the anon editor that part of the text, especially the part sourced to Ball, sounds very much like repeating Ball's personal opinion. Seeing that those were the only edits the anon editor did ([10][11][12]), this is clearly a content dispute, which the protection policy says should be acted upon with full-protection so no side can continue editing. Semi-protection would, imho, also imply that we value the anon's contributions less and that we allow registered users to edit-war against them. I think in this case the article would benefit from extended discussion, maybe an RFC but I also think that full protection was the correct policy-based step to take. Regards SoWhy 08:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC+1)
Fair enough, though it's worth noting that the anon has in the past made four reverts in one day on at least one occasion, and since it's from a rolling IP there's no way of stopping that. I hadn't noticed that there were only two registered users though (the editor who brought this to my attention wasn't either of them). The discussion on the talk page seems to have gone nowhere, though, so it may end up at RfC as you suggest. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC+1)
I request semi-protection so that only established users can edit. We can't reasonably communicate with an anon editor who's switched between numerous IPs and has made the same edit over and over since late October. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC+1)
Rollback - response on my user page
Thanks for the quick response - but would you explain a little further? Almost all my edits now show rollback vandalism, so it's not just a matter of the past. How can I get this to stop? As for the past, having the vandalism tag repeatedly on my contributions page sullies it. I'm not a vandal. Also - the edits that show this tag are not reverted, just the nasty, bold, colorful words! thanks, --Moon Rising (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC+1)
I think you refer to what Twinkle is all about - it adds a "rollback vandalism" link to all edits so you may easily revert those with an edit-summary that shows "identified as vandalism". It does not mean YOU are an vandal, it means that you can remove vandalism by other editors. They are just buttons added by Twinkle to make it easier, disable Twinkle and they will be gone. Regards SoWhy 23:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC+1)
thanks for the clear explanation - I got rid of twinkle - I don't rv vandalism all that often. --Moon Rising (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC+1)
Damn. I should have added that it does not apply to that page. I should just invoke WP:IAR myself and restore it but maybe you had a reason to delete it so I don't want to wheel it away. Any serious reason you deleted it? ;-) SoWhy 11:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC+1)
I thought as much but I'd rather be safe than sorry with my non-native language skills. ;-) SoWhy 15:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC+1)
Thanks!!
i think i start to understand how this thing works!!Soathana (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC+1)
You are welcome. If you need further help, just ask. Regards SoWhy 22:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC+1)
Question about block
Do you mind if I ask you a question about this situation which is now resovled? I am not sure why I was the only one to get the block in this situation and not TVC 15?
1) I initially did not edit the article, but began in the discussion. 2) user TVC 15 attacked me and my suggestions. 3) I appealed to more experienced users. 5) I appealed to the category wikipedia pharmacology project 4) These more experienced users sympathized with my comments and made the edits. 5) user TVC 15 reverted. 6) I undid TVC 15's reverts. 7) He undid my reverts 8) the war, for which I am guilty ensued. Shouldn't we both have reveiced the block? After all the attention, the page received a more NPOV. I can understand if you feel that I was the antagonist, but I lost patience trying to deal with TVC 15 in a rational manner. I realize that all pages are important, but when it comes to drugs used to treat clinical depression, I found TVC 15, alarmist editing to be counterproductive. Cheers Mwalla (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC+1)
You both received a warning not to edit-war further, issued by Literaturegeek (talk·contribs). Unlike you, TVC 15 has not edited further on the article when he/she received the warning, but you reverted him/her again 14 minutes after the warning. Hence the block because I had to assume that you will continue doing so. The block was not about the content of the page and I have no opinion on the matter, it was solely on the fact that you continued to revert after being warned (twice in fact) to stop it. Regards SoWhy 22:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC+1)
I made no edits after I got the warning from Literaturegeek or seresin. TVC 15 (the person who started the reversions) was trying to bullying me and he gave me a warning using a BOT, is this what you are refering to? I appreciate you clarification. I might be reading the history clock wrong. Mwalla (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC+1)mwalla
You might be the one correct here, it well looks like a mistake I could have made, mixing up the dates. I will check what happened... SoWhy 23:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC+1)
Thanks... I hate to waste your time on something so trivial. Mwalla (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC+1)mwalla
I'm quite sorry about that block. I checked now and while you did in fact break 3RR before being warned, you are correct. I just checked my laptop and noticed that the edits I tried to make to my monobook.js were unsuccessful due to a wireless failure, which lead to the problem that the script that should change the signatures' timestamps to my timezone was never added. So when viewing the history, it was out one hour to the sigs (and I assumed they weren't).
That's not an excuse for the block of course, so I want to offer my deepest apologies to you for it. While technically warranted, it came without a specific warning, so I shouldn't have done it. Sorry again. If I can be of any help to you, please do not hesitate to ask. SoWhy 23:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC+1)
Actually, SoWhy, you did the right thing and here are links showing why. As background, regarding the discussion, I never attacked Mwalla, although I did disagree with Mwalla's suggestions, for reasons most succinctly explained here.[13] There was no bullying, but when Mwalla approached and then broke 3RR I did provide a polite 3RR warning[14] which Mwalla simply deleted,[15] and notice of violation,[16] which Mwalla also simply deleted.[17] I tried to work towards compromise and offered several alternate presentations but Mwalla reverted them all, saying, "I will be here all day, try the veal."[18] By the time you enforced 3RR, Mwalla had ignored a 3RR warning, ignored a 3RR violation notice, mocked discussion, and reverted several different compromise proposals.TVC 15 (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC+1)
Agree that you did warn him but I meant a warning from an uninvolved party, as you edit-warred as well and I understand why he would have thought warnings from you as less correct. He did stop once someone neutral warned him, so blocking was not the right choice given that further disruption seemed to have stopped and I probably wouldn't have done it. That's the point I made above, the block was not technically warranted as a preemptive measure although I thought it was, given my mistake with the times. Ah well, we all make mistakes, so no harm done and I hope you both can return to editing without further incidents. Regards SoWhy 15:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC+1)
Yes, it would
It is definitely more painful. Oh please Br'er Fox, don't throw me into the brier patch. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC+1)
Oh come on. I am such a nice person, I want to SHARE my "glorious" admin experience with you. Isn't that nice? ;-) SoWhy 00:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC+1)
Cookie!
Maddie! has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
That is very nice of you, thank you :-) SoWhy 17:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC+1)
Wrong tag for Speedy Deletion
You left a note on my user page saying I had used a speedy deletion tag in an incorrect way. Very well, I'm cool, I have made mistakes in the past. I just don't understand what I did wrong. The note was very confusing. Lots42 (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC+1)
You tagged the article because "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day". This is surely correct (see WP:NOT) but speedy deletion requires that it fits on of the criteria at WP:CSD and if it doesn't, then it can't be speedy deleted. Regards SoWhy 19:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC+1)
Copy of Usquaebach Whisky
So Why, I completely understand why you deleted my page. I am not hear to argue with you, I am new to Wikipedia and I am now more aware of what an article should be. I am not requesting for you to restore my article. I would like a copy of the article so I could have the opportunity to do it over properly. I will not post it prior to having help with it from the help desk and make sure it is of quality and guidelines of Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate and help or suggestions you may have for me in my current endeavor. Let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Scotch Drinker (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC+1)
I deleted it because it was a copyright violation of another web page. I cannot restore it, not even in userspace, because otherwise the violation will continue to exist on Wikipedia. I do not understand why you need such a copy anyway, as you have the webpage at your disposal where you copied it from, so just take the information from there - good luck with the article :-) Regards SoWhy 22:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC+1)
So Why, thank you again. I was wondering if I could send you my re-edited version of the article when I finish it? Scotch Drinker (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC+1)
If you want to re-create the article without using copyrighted text, you can and should just do it in your userspace, for example at User:Scotch Drinker/Usquaebach Whisky and then we can move it to article space once done. If you need help with the topic itself, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spirits and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink where editors hang out who have knowledge in those areas. If you need any help with basic editing, you can just ask me as well of course. Regards SoWhy 22:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC+1)
Ok, thank you very much for your help and assistance. And of course your understanding. If I need any help with the editing I will let you know. Scotch Drinker (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC+1)
Can you place an indefinite semi-protection on my talk page like you did for Collectonian? Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC+1)
Sorry, but that was an exceptional case, after several limited protections for vandalism failed (see protection log). Your user talk page on the other hand does not suffer from any vandalism attacks that would require protection (and user talk pages are seldom semi-protected anyway (see WP:SEMI)). Regards SoWhy 08:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC+1)
By the way, the article was semi protected before your full protection [21]. Maybe I should have requested that instead of full unprotection, just letting you know...Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Unprotected. Regards, Húsönd 23:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Done. Hopefully, that does not start again. Regards SoWhy 18:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)