Jump to content

User talk:BigHaz/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23

Point taken.

You're right. There's never an excuse to make a personal attack against an individual editor. So let me ask you a question your record of communication demonstrates you'll appreciate: Why can't the Australians teach their sons not to be dicks? Much love, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This is now the second time this editor has referred to me personally as a "dick", and this particular instance was in the guise of an apology of sorts. Given that my initial edit summary was a vague attempt at humour, his responses seem out of proportion to say the least. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. We Yanks iz (a) senzative abowt ower kimmand of Inglish and (b) too preocuppied with more important matters to appreciate any but the most unambiguous stabs at levity. I apologize for overreacting.—DCGeist (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - November 2008

This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011 (talk). If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list.

Proposed deletion of Charlie Chaplin (song)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Charlie Chaplin (song), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 4, Issue 42 8 November 2008 About the Signpost

From the editor 
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 43 10 November 2008 About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week ArbCom elections: Nominations open 
Book review: How Wikipedia Works MediaWiki search engine improved 
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day 
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 

Volume 4, Issue 44 17 November 2008 About the Signpost

Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license 
Wikimedia Events Roundup News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


3

Yes, you were within your rights, but you made no attempts to support your view or seek consensus and you simply started what could have easily degenerated into an edit war. And I believe that source you removed to be completely viable because what is being referenced is not in the content taken from wikipedia. Not a big deal though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PEiP (talkcontribs) 02:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And herein lies the problem. If the only thing in the source I removed that wasn't cited to Wikipedia is taken as evidence, we have perhaps the flimsiest source I've seen in several years. That particular thing is the title of the page, which is something like "Prog-Archives", so all that demonstrates is that someone, somewhere along the line, believes that the band is a progressive rock act. To demonstrate the fallacy of using this as proof of anything bar an opinion, consider the bands listed on Metal-Archives - not all of the entries are for bands which have performed in the heavy metal genre for their entire careers (indeed some of them are for bands which have never performed in the heavy metal genre), and not all bands which have performed heavy metal at any given point are included. Thus, inclusion in that site simply demonstrates that someone thought they should be included there, and given what I found on the Prog-Archives (or whatever it was called) site, I strongly suspect they operate on the same basis.
Indeed, I'm being charitable by not removing more of those citations. All that they demonstrate is people referring to the band very briefly as a prog act, which again only demonstrates that certain people believe it to be true. Mercifully, there was no attempt to re-insert the claim that the band plays "experimental" music, but even the idea that it plays "progressive" music is shaky. If we take bands such as Tull, ELP, Floyd, Yes and even Rush as being unquestionably prog acts and then we listen to 3's discography (as I forced myself to recently), we see precisely no similarities. One or two songs are comparatively long, but that doesn't make prog-rock by itself. What we see is moderately skilled alternative rock music with a pop sensibility. Yes, that's my opinion only, but until there's a source out there that can demonstrate where these similarities are, I'll stick to it thanks. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - December 2008

Note: from now on the Newsletter will be "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011 (talk). If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list.

Happy Holidays!

Happy New Year!

Dear BigHaz, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2009 brings further success and happiness! ~ YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope all is well with you B! YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.


The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 4, Issue 45 24 November 2008 About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue 
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones 
Wikipedia in the news Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 

Volume 4, Issue 46 1 December 2008 About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open Wikipedia in the news 
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System Features and admins 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 5, Issue 1 3 January 2009 About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track 
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK 
Editing statistics show decline in participation Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting 
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments Dispatches: Featured list writers 
Wikipedia in the news WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 5, Issue 2 10 January 2009 About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones Wikipedia in the news 
Dispatches: December themed Main Page Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 18:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 5, Issue 3 17 January 2009 About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom Wikipedia in the news 
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 5, Issue 4 24 January 2009 About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices 
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet 
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by 03:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC) at §hepBot (Disable)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - January 2009

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 5, Issue 5 31 January 2009 About the Signpost

Large portion of articles are orphans News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored 
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on Dispatches: In the news 
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nami

I did not add any thing improper to Kazutsugi Nami page or any other page. You must be mistaken about username etc....Jon Ascton (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC).

Who are you really ?

BTW Are you Nami's lawyer ? Jon Ascton (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC).

Just a couple of examples of where you added unreferenced controversial material:
here and here. There's also this edit, which is a bit more extreme. Each one of those edits made by you - or at least made by a person logged in as you - had the effect of adding unreferenced and controversial material to the article. Nami may ultimately be found guilty, but until that's the case, we can't say that he is. Consult the relevant policy guide for more information on this point, or ask me if you're unclear.
I'm not "Nami's lawyer". I'm an editor on this website, and as a result I'm responsible at least in part for making sure that policies and guidelines are upheld. Moreover, I'm an admin here, too, which gives me added responsibilities in that and other areas. In other words, I've been around here long enough to know how the site and its policies work, and I'm happy to help you out if you're having difficulty as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
You also may want to be careful about edits such as this and edit summaries such as this in future, too. The idea behind Wikipedia is to try to edit calmly and avoid calling people names. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You are very much mistaken

I did not add any controversial info to ANY page Jon Ascton (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Ascton (talkcontribs) 12:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's make it clear

I only added " which he used to fool tens of thousands of people, defrauding away more than US$ 1.4 billion. " because it is there on almost all papers...please read it.

I never added "and attempting to take over the world" phrase, it was already there. I might have retained it while editing but under no circumstance did I put it there...

Nevertheless, I think you are right.

As about the other edits I made recently there was nothing scandlous about them. I REVERTED the name of images on SIKH page because someone had mistakingingly changed them, not knowing the difference between general text in page and image names ( please read it again )

Jon Ascton (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC).

Close, but not quite. The links I've added (which we call "diffs") show - in red - precisely the changes that you made to the Nami article. So, in the first one, you've removed the term "allegedly" and argued in your edit summary that "that is beyond dispute". It is not "beyond dispute" at all. At present, Nami has only been accused of fooling these people. Yes, the evidence looks rather damning, but a court has not yet said "Nami fooled these people", so neither can we.
In the second diff, you've added the claim that he "defrauded away" an amount of money. Again, a court has not said "Nami defrauded people of this amount of money", so neither can we. Until a court says that, it's not proven. The law and our policies are quite clear on the matter - until something is proven legally (rather than in the court of public opinion), it's an allegation and not a fact. Furthermore, when it is proven legally, we still need a reliable source to say that it was proven legally. In the same way as I can't go around claiming that you've done something nasty and illegal, neither can we write it about Nami or about any other living person.
The third diff demonstrates the need to be careful when editing the articles relating to living people involved in controversial activities. The claim that Nami was trying to take over the world was not in the version you edited and was in the version you saved after you finished. There is also another diff in which your edit summary claims that you're removing a personal attack, but you end up inserting another one, so again be careful.
The two other diffs I've pointed you to are different issues. Calling any other user "particularly dumb" as you did in the first of them is a personal attack, which is something editors are specifically cautioned to avoid. In the second one, the substance of your edit was very good indeed, but you referred to the previous editor as a "dumbhead", which is again a personal attack. Yes, the behaviour of other editors can be frustrating at times, but calling them names isn't a good idea.
Hopefully this explains the position a bit more than it did before. Always remember that we have to be very careful when talking about living people - particularly those accused of crimes - and always remember to avoid personal attacks directed at other editors. That way, everyone will work happily together. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 13:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply

First of all let me apologize for being rude.

I am guilty of removing the word "allegedly"...Guess I was wrong. I apologize again.

But for the rest me explain...

When I saw this article for the first time it read :

Kazutsugi Nami (波和二, Nami Kazutsugi?) (b. 19 May 1933) is a Japanese businessman. He was arrested on February 4, 2009 on suspicion of orchestrating a massive investor fraud and attempting to take over the world.[1] He has invented the Enten currency which he plans to use when freed to wipe out the Japanese yen. Nami believes he is innocent. He's a sly little man


Also, kindly note the word "sly man" at end which I removed. Moreover the article had a "tag" telling that it had something to do with spaceflight, I , understandably, removed that, too. This was what I meant I said in the edit summary. Jon Ascton (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

New Edits at Nami Article

Have made new edit at Kazutsugi Nami Article...have a look...and let me know if it is ok with you ? Jon Ascton (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking good to me. I know it can be annoying not to be able to add things which seem self-evident into articles, but it's ultimately for the best. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 20:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 5, Issue 6 8 February 2009 About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs" 
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

The Signpost
Volume 5, Issue 7
Weekly Delivery
2009-02-16

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 07:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - February 2009

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - March 2009

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

List of patter songs

Please do not keep reverting this article. What you are expressing is your point of view, and not an established fact. I read you comments on the talk page with interest but am not convinced by them. If you have a reference to support your claim then please provide it on the article's talk page. Blind reverting is not acceptable here and we work by consensus. The consensus is that it is a patter song. Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, what I wrote on the talk page is evidence. If there are criteria to make something a patter song, and this given song doesn't meet them, it's not a patter song. That's the way these things work. If you want it to be a patter song, you have two options. The first is to broaden the definition of the term so that it lets this (and presumably others) in, and the second is to demonstrate that it actually meets the definition as laid out already. Calling it "blind reverting" is false, since there is a clearly-articulated rationale behind it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - April 2009

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - May 2009

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - June 2009

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 07:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - July 2009

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 15:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - August 2009

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

You commented in the last Article for deletion discussion. This article is up for deletion again.

You are welcome to comment about the discussion for deletion. Ikip (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Western Civ

Hello, I had gotten an e-mail from one of Western Civ's fans asking why they don't have a wikipedia page. I remembered that there had been one at one point in time so I traced it back to you. I am not an active wiki user, so I do hope you forgive my lack of knowledge on how this works. I have read the reason for deletion and I have also read all of the criteria that must be met by a band to be considered notable. If I read the deletion log correctly I see that the reason for deletion was listed as "expired prod - borderline db-band" That said, I am including (as references) in this message links to their three published albums, a list of press garnered and links to some of their fan pages online. If you google the words "Western Civ" the band is the second and third return on google. I do believe that these elements are all examples of "Notability" [1] as Wikipedia defines it for music. Since the page "Western Civ" [2] is simply being used to redirect people to the "Western Culture" article at the moment, I do hope you will reestablish this page to it's original form, as a wiki for the band "Western Civ"

References: Link to Western Civ's published works: [www.cdbaby.com/all/westernciv ] Link to Western Civ's media press kit which includes 10 (of over 100) published reviews and articles about "Western Civ" as well as a partial list of FM stations that are playing Western Civ's music: www.sonicbids.com/westernciv

Links to Western Civ's websites: www.myspace.com/westernciv www.twitter.com/westernciv www.westerncivrock.com

Please let me know where to go from here. I'll be looking forward to speaking with you further.

Thank You, Lessaun (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC) manager, Western Civ <nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here<nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki></nowiki>

I'm hardly the most active user here these days either, but since you asked for a response it's the least I can do. Firstly, I'd point out that notability can and does evolve over time. A band may well not have been notable at the time the article was first added, but they may have become notable since then. If that's the case, there's no obstacle to an article being re-created.
That said, we need to look at the criteria carefully. The golden rule, as you've probably seen, is that the band needs to have been mentioned in independent, verifiable sources. MySpace and Twitter pages, along with the band's main page, are not going to count here. Fan pages are a bit of a challenge too, since they're not the most independent of things. However, we're talking about some reviews and things as well, so we may still be in business.
A quick skim of the reviews you've linked to suggests that they may qualify. Not being American myself, I can't speak for the scale of the newspapers etc mentioned, so we may still be in trouble if they're small local jobs.
I'm not seeing any evidence of anything charting nationally or any massive tours, so we can ignore those parts of the criteria. The same goes for notable members.
The fact that a number of radio stations play their music may also count. Again, I'll have to defer to someone who knows more on this topic than I do where the scale of these radio stations is concerned. I know that if I were to go for a drive here in Australia, I'd be able to choose from bigtime radio stations right the way through to local ones with not much range, so I'm hoping some of those listed are bigtime stations.
Label-wise, we can probably agree they're not on a notable one.
So, as for where we go from here, I'd say there are two options. The first is to re-create the article using the independent sources you have and hope for the best. The second is to wait longer and see what happens, particularly if the band continues along its merry way and becomes more notable. Frankly, I would be inclined to take the second option here, generally because you're the manager of the band and therefore have a bit of a vested interest in the article. I'm not saying you're lying or anything, of course, more just that it's better not to be connected in this way here.
I'd also point out that the lack of a Wikipedia page is far from a terminal disease. Several of my favourite bands don't have pages, since they haven't yet cracked the bigtime (or the "bigenoughtime", if I can put it that way). By the looks of things, if Western Civ aren't there yet, they will be one day. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for responding. However, I am at a bit of a loss here still. The level of their notability is not really what I had questions about. There are many bands on wikipedia who have much less notability than Western Civ. The main thing I need is to know if you are personally capable of reinstating the Western Civ page that you deleted? I mentioned their notability to illustrate that they do indeed meet the requirements. I believe that you may have been mistaken in your assessment of the band's level of exposure, so to clarify I will give direct examples.

Only about 1.5% of Western Civ's fans are based in Australia so I would not expect you to know of the band personally, but they are doing well in the US. They have charted on the CMJ radio 200 charts (which is the #1 charting company in the US for the type of music Western Civ plays) and their last album stayed on the radio charts for over 6 weeks in the US. Just to list some of the nationwide major media outlets that have written about Western Civ we would need to include reviews from some of the largest newspapers in the USA including The Chicago Tribune (4 out of 5 stars), The Orlando Sentinel (4 out of 5 stars), The Baltimore Sun (4 out of 5 stars), The Sun Sentinel in Miami (4 out of 5 stars) as well as Magnet Magazine, Performer Magazine, Crawdaddy Magazine, Harp Magazine, CMJ Music News and others. Their most recent release "Shower The People You Love With Gold" was produced by Mitch Easter (Former Let's Active frontman and producer for REM, Pavement, Dinosaur Jr. and more.) Their tour history includes playing well known venues in New York City, Raleigh (NC), Chicago (IL), Austin (TX), St.Louis (MO), Muscle Shoals (AL), Cincinnati (OH), Ann Arbor (MI), Athens (GA) and so on... The radio play they have been getting in the US includes over 80+ FM stations all across the US and several outside of the US. Those 80+ FM stations consists of a variety of large, small and college radio stations.

The wiki page that had been posted under "Western Civ" originally was not created by me, so there is no conflict of interest in my request for it to be reinstated. Just out of curiosity, why did you need the wiki title Western Civ? It is still only being used as a redirect to the page "Western Culture." It would be much appreciated if you were to undelete the page. If you are not authorized to undelete it, please direct me to whom I need to speak with next. Like I mentioned before, I've never spent time on wikipedia as a contributor or even as a logged in user, so I am not certain of the intricacies involved in undeleting a page. But unless I am mistaken, the person who deleted the page is the person who can undo it. Am I correct? Thanks again for getting back to me.

Talk Soon, -Lessaun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lessaun (talkcontribs) 20:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The argument that "there are bands here with less notability than X" doesn't really hold water. An article subject stands or falls on its own notability, rather than that of similar subjects. If there are less notable bands with articles, you're welcome to list them for deletion.
As for reinstating a page that's been deleted, the short answer is that yes, I (and any other administrator, for that matter) can definitely do that. The long answer, however, is that the original page would have been deleted because it didn't demonstrate notability at the time and in the way it was written. Reinstating that page will simply risk the same fate befalling it again. Far better, surely, to create the page afresh and provide it with better legs to stand on. Ultimately, you're going to be better off speaking with another administrator to get it recreated if you want to take that path, since I don't really play an active role here anymore.
As far as the notability itself is concerned, I hasten to point out that what I gave you before was a very quick assessment of where I felt the band stood in relation to the criteria. You of course feel differently, and it may well be that someone in a better position to judge would agree with you. If that's the case, the ultimate test is to write the article and see what happens.
To your claim that there is no conflict of interest, I still feel that there is one. The original page was written by someone else, but that page was deleted. You - who obviously are very close to the subject - are asking about getting it re-created (either in the same form that it was deleted in, or entirely afresh). That's a conflict of interest.
The deletion, moreover, was not due to a "need" (on my part or anyone else's) for the page title. The deletion was done because the article as it was written at the time did not demonstrate notability in accordance with the criteria at the time. If the article as it would be written now demonstrates it in accordance with the criteria now, then there's no obstacle to having the article. That's the way it works, as I said earlier.
If the title "Western Civ" redirects to the article on "Western Culture", clearly that's a decision that's been reached by someone (not me, I should add) who felt that that was a good thing for it to do. Not being American myself, I can't be sure about this, but I'm aware that many universities teach courses on what you and I might call "Western Culture", but which are often referred to as "Western Civ". Presumably, the redirect was created so that any students looking for an article on "Western Civ" to see what sorts of things their course would cover would end up in the right place, rather than reading about a rock group. That being the case, perhaps a better solution would be to create the article for the band as "Western Civ (band)", thus ensuring that people end up at the right place when reading about the band. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the page met all the requirements for notability at that time. That's why no one else had deleted it. (Their first album was released in 2005 and reviewed by major publications and played on radio in many US markets.) If it did not meet said requirements, in your opinion, then I would love for you to explain why in detail with examples. As per your statements, you are not American and not aware of the US publications and radio markets where the music industry is concerned. Thus making you a less than stellar source for making such decisions. I would recommend that in the future, you refrain from deleting articles when you are admittedly unfamiliar with the subject matter and thus the requirements for "notability" on the articles in that subject. The Western Civ article had not been deleted before you got to it because the other admins who had viewed it considered it to be viable. So I am not afraid of it being re-deleted. That is unless you are the one to do so.

To conclude our conversation on the matter: Will you reinstate the page at this point? If not I will go to another admin.

Thanks for your time, Lessaun (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the page did not "[meet] all the requirements for notability at the time". If it had done, there would have been no "Prod" notice ("This page is proposed for deletion for the following reason") that had been there unchallenged for five days. If the page had demonstrated the notability of the subject, either the notice would not have been added or one of the other editors would have removed it, explaining how it actually met the criteria as set out. Neither event happened, which suggests that the notability (even the notability that the subject may have had at the time) was not conveyed in the article. Admittedly, you're asking me to recall the text on a page I deleted more than a year ago, so my recollection is more than a little hazy. I am, however, familiar with the processes here, and that's why I know that notability wasn't demonstrated. The fact that I personally deleted it was simply due to the fact that I was the one checking the "expired prods" (notices which had been on articles for 5 days or more) at the time.
I would counter your recommendation with two points of my own. Firstly, my policy at the time I deleted the article was that if there was anything indicating possible notability, I passed the case onto someone closer to the topic. This indicates that there was no possible notability on the page as written. I would point out here, as a side-note, that it would be quite possible to write an article about the President of the USA without indicating his notability, despite the fact that he is patently a notable individual.
Secondly, your comments are coming increasingly close to making personal attacks. It's one thing to point out that I am Australian - a fact I don't deny at all. It's quite another to draw the conclusion that because I'm Australian, I'm suddenly incapable of performing duties which the broader community of this website felt I was capable of performing, and from that to imply that I acted improperly. The fact that you are making such implications returns to my initial feeling that you have a vested interest in the article being present on Wikipedia. I have explained three times now what I did and why I did it, however you don't wish to accept my points.
In answer to your question - no. I will not reinstate the page as it did not demonstrate notability as it was written. You're welcome to consult another admin, as indeed I suggested some time ago. Any other admin, however, will be equally concerned by your closeness to the subject and the fact that the article did not demonstrate notability last time. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 19:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - September and October 2009

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

DYK

Could you please reply ASAP at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Manpower. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Have done so. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello BigHaz! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 318 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Napoleon XIV - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  2. David Giffin - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - November and December 2009

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by xenobot 14:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

= DYK medal

The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
I can see you're not editing frequently, but noticed your listing at WP:DYKLIST and thought you deserved it :) Arctic Night 13:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - January and February 2010

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by xenobot 13:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

I've rejected your proposed deletion, because this is not an uncontroversial deletion - it's previously been to AFD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of European exonyms. As that was a while ago, and consensus may have changed, please feel free to list it at WP:AFD. Regards. Claritas (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

Team 639 Page Deletion

Hey! I'm a current officer on Ithaca High School Code Red Robotics Team 639, and I was recently perusing our web presence. Unfortunately, I found that (quite a while ago, March 2007) our page was deleted. The given reason was proposed deletion. I can't fathom any reason for deleting our page, especially since we are a FIRST Robotics Team (not alone here on Wikipedia) and already have a web presence at team639.org. It may be that the page was vandalized and beyond hope of recovery. I assure you that we now have a full-time web team which can maintain the page. The question is, can it be recovered/undeleted? I've only created my account just now to send you this message, but I imagine the most convenient way is for you to post something to my user page. Thanks for your time, please get back to me. Amcnicoll (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit: Thanks, got your reply. I have found other teams with their own articles, but these tend to be more active internationally and what not than we are. Perhaps if we expand our volunteering and get more than a few articles in the local news, we'll give our own page another go. For the time being, it seems many other teams are appending a blurb to their high school's page... Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcnicoll (talkcontribs) 14:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion for userifying

Hi

The version 1.0 bot has started working again, although the article alert bot has not, and I have just found that there were some articles deleted after 7 days.

Growing self-organizing map which falls under the perdue of the Robotics project.

Is there any chance you can tell me please if there was any content in there and if it can be Userified for me to try and include in other articles or to be rewritten? If so there is a page ready at User:Chaosdruid/sandbox7

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - March through July 2010

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list.


Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of CT Cooper at 19:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC).

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Nomination of Answer song for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Answer song, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Answer song until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Mark Cristian

Thanks for the correction, that was a genuine copy paste error. I am not yet familiar with all this talk page and discussion thing on Wiki and hence I request that please delete this entry if you find it in wrong place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amboeing747 (talkcontribs) 12:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Hello. This is a message to inform you that your name has been removed from from the list of Wikipedia Signpost subscribers. Do not worry; this is simply a method of reforming the Signpost so that automated bots do not fill up retired users' talk pages with Signpost subscriptions (see discussion here) and to make life easier for the Signpost. If you wish to re-receive subscriptions, please send a reconfirmation edit to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe by signing with

  1. MessageDeliveryBot [you can also use a user talk subpage (like
  2. MessageDeliveryBot, replacing SUBPAGE with the subpage for the delivery), but this won't trigger your "New messages" bar.] Thank you for understanding.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of TeleComNasSprVen (talk) at 05:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

Reason

A user User:TeleComNasSprVen decided to delete unactive subscribers without any consensus, so i reverted a large part of the bot's edits with a IRC consensus. The delivery bot has been blocked and i have reverted the bot's edit. --Zalgo (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There we go. A couple of simple sentences to explain something, rather than just simply doing it with no explanation. The world functions better this way, no? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but i was doing a mass rollback :) --Zalgo (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
It takes two seconds to explain what you were doing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


The Signpost: 3 October 2011

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

The Signpost: 7 November2011

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

John Boardman Article

Hi. In 2004, why did you create an article on a unknown physics professor, entitled John Boardman in Wikipedia? Should all university professors regardless of their contributions be included in Wikipedia? Stevenmitchell (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I can see you're trying to fight the same battle on the talk page for the article. Considering that the man made significant contributions to the game of Diplomacy, I felt at the time that the article was justified. As you've been told on the talk page, there are other contributions he's made in other fields (ones I'm not qualified to assess). Of course "all university professors" should not be included in Wikipedia, unless they are notable in some way - either within or without their academic fields. The fact that you haven't heard of an article subject doesn't mean that the article should not exist - otherwise this wouldn't be an encyclopedia, would it? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear BigHaz,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk)

(Delivered by Kevin (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC) via AWB by request)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012


Homage

Hello. Regarding the issue of whether to use a or an before the word homage, the site dictionary.com gives a specific example of this on the page that defines homage: "something done or given in acknowledgment or consideration of the worth of another: a Festschrift presented as an homage to a great teacher.". In some situations a is used before a word that starts with h (as on your user page...a historian) but in other situations an is the appropriate choice. This is reputable information, feel free to revert your edit on the Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid article. Great movie, by the way. Dk100 (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I know what the word means, yes. That doesn't change my point. The rule, you'll find, is that if the "h" is pronounced, the article is "a". If the "h" is silent, the article is "an". Thus, I can be a historian and watch a hologram for an hour in a hotel eating a hot dog. The American mock-French pronunciation of "homage" is the equivalent of the Monty Python routine about "an hoop". In other words, the edit stands. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

Trivial data on Eurovision articles

Hi BigHaz, It has been noted that you have reintroduced data that has been removed from ESC 2010; ESC 2011; and ESC 2012 articles, after a discussion took place to remove these details. Both CT Cooper and myself have pointed out to Bleubeatle (talk · contribs), that these sections were never accepted as standard sections at all - there were simply mass added by another user under the radar without any consensus, which there should be for something like this. If you choose to edit an article regularly you should be keeping an eye on what is going on the talk page, which is used to allow improvements to be made, and if multiple editors are repeatedly removing a section, that is usually a strong hint that there might be something that needs discussion. These sections have been badly formatted with various problems including inappropriate links in the section headings (discouraged in MOS:HEAD), a one entry table that could be in prose, no written explanation on what these tables mean, and most importantly, no sources. As an established user I'm sure you are aware that it is requirement per the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy that content added to articles is sourced if it is challenged or likely to be challenged, which this is, and the burden is on those adding or restoring such material to provide sources. Could you please self-revert your actions - thank you WesleyMouse 12:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The "discussion" to which you refer seems to have been a very minor one at best, and consisted of a couple of people saying that they felt the information should not be there. That's not necessarily a "discussion" in the proper sense of the word. I know entirely what a talk page is designed for, and would appreciate not receiving a lecture on the topic if that's all the same to you. I'm not going to say that the information as it is currently presented is 100% perfect by any means, which should hardly come as a surprise in a collaborative effort such as this. Were it not late and were I not unwell, I would have attempted to format the information better and make it more useful, verifiable and relevant, and I would contend that the second of those three criteria can be fulfilled quite simply by anyone who wishes to do so, rather than simply gainsaying the inclusion entirely. As I pointed out in my edit, and as I will say here as well, the inclusion of an award winner for Eurovision is exactly as notable as saying that Player X won the "Golden Boot" award after a given FIFA World Cup. It's an award given for a performance at a major event. End of story, as far as I can see. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
They are also awards data that are currently covered on their respective articles. What should really have happened is each Eurovision by year article, should have had links to OGAE and Marcel award articles at the bottom of their pages in a "see also" section - this is the norm on most cases like this. As it has been pointed out, another user added these sections originally without seeking a consensus on the proposal of these new sections. Communication is a vital tool, and should have been done by the user who had originally added content without seeing if they warranted inclusion - it could be that the user was unaware of that procedure at that time. However, as this content has now been noticed, they have been removed accordingly, and in accordance to several policies that have been pointed out by CT Cooper (talk · contribs). Also, please avoid negative tones aimed at other user, like you did above stating that I gave you a "lecture"; when I never did such thing. Everything I wrote was in good faith, and explaining reasons why details had been removed. WesleyMouse 12:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
For want of a better description, it's your "tone of voice" to which I objected when I indicated that you were lecturing me. That may be the way that you normally interact with people online, and if so there we are, but it qualifies as a lecture in my book. With regards to my example, I would refer you to the article on the 2010 World Cup, the most recent edition of the tournament. You'll find that there is a section dealing with the "awards" given at the end of it, the team of the tournament etc. It's formatted slightly better than the list of awards at the conclusion of those three Eurovisions, but there it is. If you want to suggest to the people involved in those articles that those awards are better off being moved to a separate page linked by a "see also" section, then please do. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but it being "verifiable" isn't good enough. If editors are going to insist on it being there it needs to be sourced and sourced properly. WP:BURDEN, which is part of a core policy of this project, is pretty clear on whose responsibility it is here. I don't think the sections should be there and I have better things to be doing. As far as I'm concerned, lack of sources is grounds alone for removal, and content which isn't sourced will be removed. CT Cooper · talk 13:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
So if there are no sources for these awards, why do we have a page which lists them at all, as there is at the present time? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if my tone sounded like a lecture, it wasn't meant to come across that way - I was merely trying to be helpful in explaining things. I didn't know at the time how experienced you actually are on here - my mistake. I understand your point of view in regards to the way the awards are listed on the 2010 World Cup article. However, on the nine Eurovision articles (yes, these data tables went back as far as 2003 upon further investigation); not one of the sections for Marcel and OGAE awards had a prose explaining what they were; so anyone viewing them with no knowledge of Eurovision, would start to wonder how these awards where determined, as they are never announced on the live shows. I wrote a little prose on the 2012 article - which is being used as an example towards a RfC on the layout style for these articles. Having a "see also" section would be more logical though, and again I've tested that idea out on the 2010 - 2012 articles for comparison during the RfC.
In response to the question you put forward to CT Cooper, there are articles for Marcel Bezençon Awards and OGAE Awards, and they list all the winners, and has a handful of sources to cite what these awards are about. Having the details also appearing on Eurovision by Year articles (such as ESC 2010 etc) may be excessive - but that is just my personal opinion on the matter. WesleyMouse 23:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
So, at the risk of going further around in circles, I'll make my points one last time. If there are articles for the Bezençon and OGAE Awards which have their respective sources and explanations (the pages I referred to in my response to CT Cooper), we know that the information is verifiable, sourced and capable of being included in Wikipedia. Thus, CT Cooper's point is largely moot. "Lack of sources" is not something we're dealing with. What we're dealing with is information which needs to be included in the right way, just as post-tournament awards are in sporting events. The model of those articles seems eminently sensible - the awards themselves are included with links so that the curious can click to another page in order to find out who the devil Bezençon or OGAE is, just as people can do the same to find out exactly what a Golden Boot or a Fred Biletnikoff Award might relate to on pages that talk about someone winning either such thing. The fact that such information needs some surgery before it gets to that stage is hardly reason to remove it in the first place - otherwise there'd be plenty of articles that never got off the ground. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Brisbane meetup with Sue Gardner invitation

Riverside Precinct Brisbane Meetup
Next: 11 February 2013 5-8PM - Drinks and light dinner at SLQ with Sue Gardner
Last: 3 August 2012

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup on 11 February 2013 with Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation.

More details can be found at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane/7. I hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 06:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in SEQ)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - November 2013

Issue XXXVI Project Eurovision
monthly
Click image below to read full edition
Click here to read the latest newsletter

At the time of publication the project statistics were as follows
Total Number of Members Active Members Inactive Members Total Number of Articles Number of Good Articles Number of Featured Articles Require Improvements
68 51 17 4987 16 4 2204
2 3 1 81 836

To discontinue receiving Eurovision newsletters and mini memorandums, please remove your name from here.

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

ProjectEurovision Monthly Newsletter - December 2013

Project Eurovision
monthly
Issue XXXVII

Click icon to view full edition
Click here to read the latest newsletter
Headlines
Eurovision Song Contest 2013 achieves Good article status.
Malta win the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013.

At the time of publication the project statistics were as follows
Total Number of Members Active Members Inactive Members Total Number of Articles Number of Good Articles Number of FA/FLs Require Improvements
62 42 20 5086 21 6 1352
6 9 3 99 5 2 24

To discontinue receiving Eurovision newsletters and mini memorandums, please remove your name from here.

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

George Guidall deletion

Good day, BigHaz

I was looking for information on George Guidall, a narrator of audio books. I noticed that you deleted a page under that name back in 2007. I'm wondering if you happen to recall why that was done? (The delete summary wasn't clear to me).

I don't want to recreate the page if there is some reason why it shouldn't exist.

Thanks. Tacticus (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

ProjectEurovision Monthly Newsletter - January 2014

Project Eurovision
monthly
Issue XXXVIII

Click icon to view full edition
Click here to read the latest newsletter
Headlines
Farid Hasanov won Türkvizyon Song Contest 2013 for Azerbaijan
Malta to host Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014.

At the time of publication the project statistics were as follows
Total Number of Members Active Members Inactive Members Total Number of Articles Number of Good Articles Number of FA/FLs Require Improvements
64 44 20 5105 21 6 1358
2 2 29 6

To discontinue receiving Eurovision newsletters and mini memorandums, please remove your name from here.

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

More reasons to keep

Hello BigHaz, long time ago you have expressed your views on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_dictators. Now I have improved the related articles and lists with systematic findings based on published reliable sources from history and political science. However, two of them are currently submitted to Afds (by a Chinese Wikipedian who in the past has personally attacked me for my contribution to politics-related articles in Chinese Wikipedia). Your comments are welcome and appreciated: (1) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_dictatorships (2)Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_modern_dictators_in_Latin_America. Thanks.--(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng) 15:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 39

Project Eurovision News Issue XXXIX

Click icon to view full edition
Click here to read the latest newsletter
Headlines
Conchita Wurst wins Eurovision 2014 for Austria.
Maltese broadcaster, PBS unveil the logo for Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014.

At the time of publication the project statistics were as follows
Total Number of Members Active Members Inactive Members Total Number of Articles Number of Good Articles Number of FA/FLs Require Improvements
66 46 20 5153 22 6 1374
2 2 48 1 16

To discontinue receiving Eurovision newsletters and mini memorandums, please remove your name from here.

This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of Wesley Mouse 23:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 40

Project Euroision News: Issue 40
Headlines
Intervision Song Contest revival. Sochi to host the Intervision Song Contest 2014.
Austria win the Eurovision Young Musicians 2014. Slovenia finished 2nd, with Hungary in 3rd place.
Did you know that...?
Cân i Gymru, organised by S4C is the Welsh
equivalent of the Eurovision Song Contest.
At the time of publication the project statistics were as follows
Number of articles Good articles A-class articles Feature articles Require improvements Number of members
5166 13 23 1 0 0 6 0 2185 811 69 3

You may now unsubscribe from receiving Project Eurovision News, whilst still maintaining membership within the project itself. To unsubscribe, click here.

This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of Wesley Mouse 09:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

WikiProject Eurovision - consensus discussion

There is a discussion regarding colour coding on articles taking place on the project talk page that requires input from as many project members as possible. Thank you, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

Hi from Wil

Hi BigHaz, I'm trying to figure out why people are walking away from the Wikipedia project, so I figured I'd just ask them. I noticed there was a big flurry of activity in your edits from 2006-2008, then relatively speaking, nothing. I also noticed what looks like a personal conflict at the top of this page around the time of your last smaller (but still quite large) grouping of edits. Did this have anything to do with your leaving? I'm trying to gather responses from some of Wikipedia's most prolific editors who have now largely walked away from the project. It would be nice if you could leave your experience on my talk page: Wil's talk page. If you'd like to respond privately instead, you can mail me at wllm@wllm.com. In any case, I wish you the best. ,Wil (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

Proposed deletion of Playback (song)

The article Playback (song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not comply with that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ezaid Fabber (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 41

Project Euroision News
Issue 41

Headlines
Intervision Song Contest gets postponed to Spring 2015.
Vienna announced as host city of Eurovision Song Contest 2015.
Click here to read the full edition
At the time of publication the project statistics were as follows
Number of articles Good articles A-class articles Feature articles Require improvements Number of members
5282 116 24 1 0 0 6 0 2349 164 75 6

You may now unsubscribe from receiving Project Eurovision News, whilst still maintaining membership within the project itself. To unsubscribe, click here.

This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of Wesley Mouse 15:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 42

Project Euroision News: Issue 42
Brief headlines
Repeated policy breaking and several other issues are causing great concerns within the project.
A few active debates taking place across the project that require urgent attention and participation from many members.
At the time of publication the project statistics were as follows
Number of articles Good articles A-class articles Feature articles Require improvements Number of members
5509 227 25 1 0 0 4 2 2332 17 80 5

You may now unsubscribe from receiving Project Eurovision News, whilst still maintaining membership within the project itself. To unsubscribe, click here.

This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of Wesley Mouse 08:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 43


Issue 43

Headlines
Quality as standard: a few Eurovision articles have been nominated for FA status and one is promoted to GA.
Let Junior Eurovision battle commence!
Project membership breaks through the 100 barrier.

At the time of publication the project statistics were as follows
Number of articles Good articles A-class articles Feature articles Number of members
5590 81 20 5 1 1 4 0 109 29

HOMETALKPORTALNEWSDESKUNSUBSCRIBEARCHIVES
Published by the Eurovision WikiProject

This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of Wesley Mouse 13:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

WikiProject Eurovision - Urgent Message

Dear Project Eurovision Member,

There is a serious discussion been created at the WikiProject Eurovision talk page that requires utmost attention from all, or as many members as possible, as this could bear a huge impact on the project as a whole. Please click here to read the discussion, and participate peacefully. Thank you.
This message was delivered at 04:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of Project Eurovision Newsdesk

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 44


Issue 44

Headlines
Review of 2014, and a look ahead to 2015.
Voting fraud from Turkmenistan and Bosnia-Herzegovina at Türkvizyon 2014
Udo Jürgens winner of Eurovision 1966 dies aged 80.

At the time of publication the project statistics were as follows
Number of articles Good articles A-class articles Feature articles Number of members
5620 30 21 1 1 0 4 0 111 2

HOMETALKPORTALNEWSDESKUNSUBSCRIBEARCHIVES
Published by the Eurovision WikiProject

This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of Wesley Mouse 18:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 45


Issue 45

Headlines
Project Eurovision Cup launches 1 March.
Sources come under review with one now banned.
Assessment of articles.
Eurovision pre-selections are in full swing.

At the time of publication the project statistics were as follows
Number of articles Unassessed articles Good articles A-class articles Feature articles Number of members
5836 216 52 52 21 0 1 0 4 0 93 18

HOMETALKPORTALNEWSDESKUNSUBSCRIBEARCHIVES
Published by the Eurovision WikiProject

This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 11:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

WikiProject Eurovision Cup - March 2015

WikiProject Eurovision Cup
March 2015

Dear Project Member

This is a reminder that the first Project Eurovision Cup begins on Sunday 1 March and will run all the way through until Tuesday 31 March. The aim of the competition is to help improve many of the articles within Project Eurovision that would have been otherwise left neglected, by carrying out as many objectives as possible. The more objectives you do, the more points you will earn. So have you got what it takes to be crowned Project Eurovision Member of the Month? Click here to sign up.

The Project Cup judges, Wesley Mouse and CT Cooper, wish you all the best of luck.

This notice was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 46

Issue 46
Headlines
  • Australia join the Eurovision family and will compete in Vienna.
  • • Project members urged to familiarise themselves with WP:BLP policies.
  • • Project templates have been revamped and renamed.
  • • Registration for the next Project Eurovision Cup opens.
At the time of publication the project
statistics were as follows:
Number of articles 6031 195
Unassessed articles 0 52
Good articles 21 0
A-class articles 1 0
Feature articles 3 1
Number of members 99 6

HOMETALKPORTALNEWSDESKUNSUBSCRIBEARCHIVES
Published by the Eurovision WikiProject

This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision 10:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

.

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

WikiProject Eurovision Cup - April 2015

WikiProject Eurovision Cup
EuroCup II

Dear Project Member

The winner of the first Project Eurovision Cup is Jjj1238, who achieved an outstanding 108 points. Androptrnt finished in second place with 30 points, and Moldova96 in third with 15 points.

The second contest has begun, with participants from the first contest automatically registered. The EuroCup II will run from 1 April to 30 June, to allow people to get articles reviewed for GA or FA status. The aim of the competition is to help improve many of the articles within Project Eurovision that would have been otherwise left neglected, by carrying out as many objectives as possible. The more objectives you do, the more points you will earn. So have you got what it takes to be crowned winner of the next Project Eurovision Cup? Project members who wish to participate have until 18 April to sign up.

The Project Cup judges, Wesley Mouse and CT Cooper, wish you all the best of luck.

This notice was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 10:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

Tunisian Arabic

Dear User,

As you are one of the contributors to Tunisian Arabic. You are kindly asked to review the part about Domains of Use and adjust it directly or through comments in the talk page of Tunisian Arabic.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Cup news

WikiProject Eurovision Cup
EuroCup News


Dear Project Member

The winner of the second Project Eurovision Cup is Moldova98, who achieved a score of 54 points. Androptrnt finished in second place once again with 40 points, and Sims2aholic8 in third with 16 points.

The third edition has begun and will run from 1 July to 30 September, allowing participants a reasonable amount of time to have their articles which they may have nominated for GA or FA status, to be reviewed. The aim of the competition is to help improve many of the articles within Project Eurovision that would have been otherwise left neglected, by carrying out as many objectives as possible. The more objectives you do, the more points you will earn. So have you got what it takes to be crowned winner of the next Project Eurovision Cup? Project members who wish to participate can now register or de-register at any time by clicking here.

The Project Cup judges, Wesley Mouse and CT Cooper, wish you all the best of luck.

This notice was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 13:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 47

Issue 47
Headlines
At the time of publication the project
statistics were as follows:
Number of articles 6175 144
Unassessed articles 31 31
Good articles 24 3
A-class articles 1 0
Feature articles 3 0
Number of members 100 1

HOMETALKPORTALNEWSDESKUNSUBSCRIBEARCHIVES
Published by the Eurovision WikiProject

This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision 16:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

Brisbane Meetup

Hi there! I'm dropping you this notice as you've indicated on your userpage that you're a Wikipedian in the Brisbane area. Assuming significant interest, I'm organising an event for August 22 at the SLQ Café in South Brisbane, and we'd love for you to come along. A list of people interested in coming, and a discussion space has been created at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane/8. Hope to see you there! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Wikipedians in Brisbane. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

"Several previous"

The World Factbook actually does define "Several previous" to be 4-9. (see 1st paragraph here.) However, you're probably right to pull it as you did with this edit because it's probably irrelevant to the reader. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

Rajkumar Kanagasingam

Some time ago you participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam. As the article has recently been recreated, and nominated again for deletion, you are invited to participate in the new discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam (2nd nomination). —Psychonaut (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

Brisbane Meetup in January 2016

Hi there! I'm dropping you this notice as you've indicated on your userpage that you're a Wikipedian in the Brisbane area. To celebrate fifteen years of Wikipedia, we are holding a celebration in Brisbane on the 16th of January and you are invited! For further information, and to register your interest, please see our meetup page. Hope to see you there!

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Wikipedians in Brisbane. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery.

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

Teitur Thordarson

There is clear consensus that the subject's name is Teitur Thordarson. Do not move without discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Rubbish. We had this discussion in November and the conclusion was that a policy that only applies when you want it to isn't a policy. Come back with a better argument sometime BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

Request to undelete page

On 2 March 2007, BigHaz deleted the page Bestwood Park [Estate]. This is a suburb in North Nottingham, and is distinct from the Bestwood Estate (geographically, population dates, postal address, and housing style). This means that it is not currently listed as an 'Area of Nottingham'. I am therefore requesting that it be re-instated. TonyP (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

If whatever notability issues the page had at the time can be got around, you have nothing stopping you from re-creating the page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I do not know of the reason for its deletion so I contacted you in case you were against its reinstatement. I don't believe this is contraversial; well, at least not for someone like myself who was raised in this locality. Any idea where I can retrieve the previous content? TonyP (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the deletion log, the only reason it was deleted was that there wasn't anything written there beyond "It's a place in Nottingham" or words to that effect, so the deletion was due to the fact that there was an absence of content. My suggestion would be to start writing afresh, frankly. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, BigHaz. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

WikiProject Eurovision: Important Announcement

WikiProject Eurovision
Important Announcement


Dear Project Member

Following a project community discussion, which was raised over the use of English translation columns on annual contest articles, and advice from the lead coordinator of The Guild of Copy Editors, who are extremely knowledgeable in regards to all editing practises and manual of style policies. A consensus decision has been reached to fully remove ALL English translations, as such content falls under the prohibition on original research, even if it seems helpful to the reader. This is because we have now to assume that every reader has access to automated translation tools that can always give them a sense of the meaning of the title in their native language; it is not Wikipedia's job to provide those tools for the reader. Which therefore means we are no longer to include an English translation column, nor are we to provide translation by any other means on contest articles.

Such information is currently in the process of being removed, and a new table formatting and layout style is being rolled out across all articles. Please view the new guidance on table layout at Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Format and Guides#Article layout. An example of the new table layout style can also be access via the collapsed section within this message. Thank you.

New table format and layout per advice from the guild of copy-editors and consensus of the project community
Draw Country Artist Song Language Place Points
01  Ukraine Mariya Yaremchuk "Tick-Tock" English 6 113
02  Belarus Teo "Cheesecake" English 16 43
03  Azerbaijan Dilara Kazimova "Start a Fire" English 22 33
04  Iceland Pollapönk "No Prejudice" English 15 58
05  Norway Carl Espen "Silent Storm" English 8 88
06  Romania Paula Seling & Ovi "Miracle" English 12 72
07  Armenia Aram MP3 "Not Alone" English 4 174
08  Montenegro Sergej Ćetković "Moj svijet" Montenegrin 19 37
09  Poland Donatan & Cleo "My Słowianie – We Are Slavic" Polish, English 14 62
10  Greece Freaky Fortune feat. RiskyKidd "Rise Up" English 20 35
11  Austria Conchita Wurst "Rise Like a Phoenix" English 1 290
12  Germany Elaiza "Is It Right" English 18 39
13  Sweden Sanna Nielsen "Undo" English 3 218
14  France TWIN TWIN "Moustache" French1 26 2
15  Russia Tolmachevy Sisters "Shine" English 7 89
16  Italy Emma "La mia città" Italian2 21 33
17  Slovenia Tinkara Kovač "Round and Round" English, Slovene 25 9
18  Finland Softengine "Something Better" English 11 72
19  Spain Ruth Lorenzo "Dancing in the Rain" English, Spanish 10 74
20   Switzerland Sebalter "Hunter of Stars" English 13 64
21  Hungary András Kállay-Saunders "Running" English 5 143
22  Malta Firelight "Coming Home" English 23 32
23  Denmark Basim "Cliché Love Song" English 9 74
24  Netherlands The Common Linnets "Calm After the Storm" English 2 238
25  San Marino Valentina Monetta "Maybe" English 24 14
26  United Kingdom Molly "Children of the Universe" English 17 40
1.^ The song is in French; however, there is one sentence in English and one sentence in Spanish.
2.^ The song is completely in Italian; however the last line was sung in English at the contest.

This notice was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 21:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi BigHaz.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, BigHaz. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, BigHaz. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

Estonian Eurovision entries.

I marked these as uncontroversial redirects as neither page had any references. Also, under criteria of WP:MUSIC it states that a song should have reached first, second or third position in a major music contest. In both cases the songs fell well short of that. Hence the uncontroversial redirect. Karst (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

You'll note that to enter the Eurovision Song Contest, an Estonian entry needs to win the national pre-selection, which is a "major music contest". This was discussed many years ago and settled then, so let's not re-invent wheels. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, references have been added (yes, they could do with being in-text ones, but they are at least something now). If a wheel is to be re-invented, it's a discussion to have, rather than a unilateral redirect to make, you'll surely agree. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I do not see how the Estonian national pre-selection for the Eurovision Song Festival is a major music contest. However, under WP:BRD I accept this will now have to go to RfC at some point. Thanks for adding the references, both articles have some way to go before they pass WP:GNG. Karst (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I would have difficulty understanding how a number of national contests (and a few international ones) with their own articles and links to articles about participants are "major" as well, but that's the way things are. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

I undid your change to the native name of the island, because it was unsourced and the existing name was sourced to a government publication (although the ref was dead and I substituted another copy). I am no expert on this subject, and it appears you might be, so if you want to reapply your change I will not edit war over it, but please add a source showing the use of that version.-gadfium 01:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't claim to be an "expert", but you're welcome to flatter me and claim otherwise. Certainly happy to look for sources, but the challenges are that the local language doesn't tend to be written very much (and there's not really a "standard" for it) and a lot of the official documents have been obliterated by the actions of my charming government in the past 18 months or so. There's bound to be something, I hope, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

Your "Schreit mich an"

G'day BigHaz. Perhaps by "Schreit mich an" you mean to say in German "Write to me", but you seem to have said something like "Step on me" or (figuratively) "Get to work on me". "Write to me" would be "Schreib mir". But this is not an error (if it is) to be anticipated from a de-4. Am perplexed. Wikiain (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Neither of the above, you'll find. It's a slight misrendering of "Shout at me" (since I was formerly a very active user, people were more keen to shout at, rather than talk to, me here) with any grammatical quirks in tribute to an old friend who never quite got German grammar sorted out. "To step" would be "schritten", and this something to the tune of "Schritt auf mich". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking of "schreiten". However, Safari translator gives "schreit mich an" as, from "schreien", (s/he is) "yelling at me". That makes sense, anyway, and promise I therein not to participate. Here is a present for you in case you haven't seen it. Wikiain (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Aphmau

Hi! A page recently created called Aphmau, was deleted for not following the criteria of Wikipedia being that it was in violation of A7 and G11. I was wondering if you could put the code of the page into my sandbox, and tell me pointers on how I can make the article better. Specific pointers. This was my second article that I created on Wikipedia and I thought that I created one that was not in direct violation of Wikipedia rules. Please get back to me! Jamesjpk (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the specific pointers I would give you would be to look at the criteria cited in the deletion. A7 explains that the subject of the article needs to be "important or significant", and G11 indicates that the article itself can't simply be "promotional". We may well differ in our interpretations of whether the article was promotional, but there wasn't anything in the original article which indicated why the subject was "important or significant", so much as there was a blow-by-blow account of her life to date. Do also recall that there's the additional hurdle of needing to indicate the Notability of the subject through reliable sources, rather than just simply making claims of significance, assuming that A7 is indeed passed. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC).
Can you give me the code of the deleted page so I can edit it and make it better? Jamesjpk (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, you're better off starting afresh, as the article contained nothing beyond biography, without a single claim of importance or notability. Before you do, though, can I ask what the notability would be that the subject has? Without it, I can almost guarantee that the re-written article would be either speedied or deleted in another way. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The notability would be of her being famous within the YouTube community. She has over 2.6M subscribers and has a combined view count of 1,149,854,256. She is in the top 1000 subscribed YouTube channels. I think that if Alan Becker has a Wikipedia page about his fame on YouTube, yet has less subscribers than Aphmau, than he has less notability than her. Also, if I had the Aphmau page, I can salvage much of the info-box when re-creating a page. Please let me know if I can have the code! Jamesjpk (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Another notability would be her being nominated for the Shorty Awards, in the gaming category. Jamesjpk (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Another (another) notability would be that she is already mentioned on the Wiki several times so the article wouldn't be an orphan. Please get back to me if I can get the code of the page! (im sorry if I seem a little spammy at this point xD) Jamesjpk (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
You do come across a little spammy, yes. Do recall that editors are in different time zones, and in this case my ability to respond to you at all let alone with the code you're after - is conditioned by it being Saturday morning for me, and the start of quite a busy weekend. I can therefore make no guarantee about when I'll have the chance to get the code to you. I note that the links you've provided (which I've removed, as there's no need for them here) weren't in the original article when it was deleted, which suggests again that starting afresh, writing an article in line with the relevant policies and perhaps then adding in any biographical detail from the original article may be the better move. Nonetheless, I'll get what I can to you when I can get it to you. With regards to the arguments you've made about notability, I'd make the following points. Firstly, as mentioned, none of those claims were in the original article. Secondly, the inclusion (or lack thereof) of an article on any other subject doesn't constitute a reason to include or delete an article on any given subject. Thirdly, consider the criteria specifically relating to web content in regards to this article and the subject's nomination for an award. Finally, the fact that someone or something is "mentioned several times" elsewhere is not a claim of notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm really sorry if I came across as not having any consideration for different time zones. I didn't mean to be rude at all. The point I was trying to make across the whole string of conversation was that if I got the code back I bet I could make a uceful encyclopedia article that would add to this wiki
Thank you for the consideration of this topic! (I'm sorry! 😀)
Jamesjpk (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Code coming up. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I've now added the code (with no-wiki tags around it, but you're free to remove those) to your sandbox. The only part of the code on the page as deleted which I didn't add was the CSD tag itself, since that's largely irrelevant if you're re-creating the article. Your best bet if you want an experienced user/admin to review a re-written article would be to check with someone other than me, as I feel a fresher pair of eyes would do good here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank You! Jamesjpk (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 4. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jamesjpk (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned, I'm not going to express an opinion in relation to what I take to be a re-created article which is presumably going to assert and demonstrate notability (at least, I can see that this subject is on the Deletion Review list you've linked here), where the previous version did not. My involvement in this ran as far as deleting the original incarnation of the article which (as seen in the code which I added to your sandbox page) was merely a blow-by-blow account of the young lady's life, studiously avoiding any claims of anything beyond being a living human female. If you want to seek an opinion on a new version of the article, I suggest that you seek it from another pair of eyes than mine. The situation with respect to the original article, which was speedily-deleted as per our discussion here and in the section above, is entirely clear. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for helping me thus far! 😀 Jamesjpk (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

CSD A10

Please be more careful. The article Jacques Rivière has existed for a long time. Yesterday a troll, Nsmutte, created a copy at Jacques Rivièry. You deleted the long-standing article as A10 completely wrongly. Then the troll blanked the copy and got it deleted that way. So you just helped Nsmutte attack their new harassment target, Ubiquity. BethNaught (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies. That was a result of having more tabs open than I probably should have had at the time. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

MasTrack Speedy Deletion

Hello User:BigHaz,

I noticed that you had deleted a page that I created titled MasTrack, due to what you considered "lack of significance". MasTrack was one of the first companies to offer Telematics technology back in 1999, and if you feel I did not sufficiently describe this, I would be more than happy to elaborate. For the time being, please restore the page in which I had created so that I can edit it to meet your approval. Thank you. --AirportExpert (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert

The article as written didn't describe it at all, simply indicating that the company existed and was in the industry it is in. There's no obstacle to re-creating the page should you choose to do so, but you'll need to ensure that the page as re-created indicates that significance (and supports it with reliable evidence), as otherwise there's a risk that it would be deleted again. I'm about to turn in for the night as it stands, so I don't have the time right now to consider the request to restore the page as it was, but I will suggest that there's not much to be gained by restoring a page which was speedy-deleted, as another admin could just as easily speedy-delete it while you're asserting significance. Far better, on the face of it, to start afresh. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
21 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Demographics of French Polynesia (talk) Add sources
24 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Politics of the Pitcairn Islands (talk) Add sources
607 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: C Axis leaders of World War II (talk) Add sources
716 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Commanders of World War II (talk) Add sources
94 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C History of the Pitcairn Islands (talk) Add sources
24 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Persian Risk (talk) Add sources
1,175 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: FA HMS Bounty (talk) Cleanup
528 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Cheating in online games (talk) Cleanup
18 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Rookie card (talk) Cleanup
4,269 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA Hard disk drive (talk) Expand
582 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Pacific Islander (talk) Expand
74 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA Pirate Party of Sweden (talk) Expand
20 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: C Flex nib (talk) Unencyclopaedic
99 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Saved game (talk) Unencyclopaedic
41 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA Reception of WikiLeaks (talk) Unencyclopaedic
39 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Stub Workers' Day (talk) Merge
10 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub East–west rail corridor, Australia (talk) Merge
16 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: C ICWATCH (talk) Merge
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub 1938 New Mexico Lobos football team (talk) Wikify
13 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Evelin Samuel (talk) Wikify
100 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Matthew Smith (games programmer) (talk) Wikify
93 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Stub Pepsi Spire (talk) Orphan
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Lim Tae-hoon (talk) Orphan
4 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C The East Wing Forecourt of the Central Government Office (Civil Square) (talk) Orphan
9 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Come Ye Blessed (talk) Stub
24 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Languages of the Pitcairn Islands (talk) Stub
59 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start William McCoy (mutineer) (talk) Stub
14 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Flag and coat of arms of the Pitcairn Islands (talk) Stub
64 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Penitential Psalms (talk) Stub
5 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Scouting and Guiding in the Pitcairn Islands (talk) Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of NATCO Communications, Inc. page 4/19/17

Hello: Could you please provide insight on the information you deemed as "promotion?" I used the Comcast Wikipedia page as an example of the information that should be included in the article. There was no "call to action" for sales nor mention of any pricing. The article includes the list of services provided by the company.

I would appreciate your consideration in reviewing the article a 2nd time in direct comparison to other telecommunications companies' Wikipedia pages.

If you have suggestions on sentences or paragraphs that could be edited or altered to better suit the guidelines, please forward those to me. I will be glad to revise them as you see fit.

Thank you, BrooksJeffrey (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Certainly. I think the first thing to say here is that "direct comparison" isn't what I'm going to do here, as each individual article stands or falls on its merits, rather than because there's a bunch of other similar articles (or not) already on Wikipedia. In other words, "But they've all got articles" isn't a valid reason to keep an article.
Looking at the article, there's no claim of notability anywhere in the text. Shorn of the information about what the company does, the article boils down to "NATCO is a communications company". It's been around for a while, true, but the fact that it's been around for a while doesn't necessarily confer notability (see the link to the policy on that topic). Even if it were notable purely because of its age, this would need to be supported by reliable, non-trivial, third-party sources, which the deleted incarnation of the article did not do.
In terms of its promotional aspects, there are two red flags I can see straight away. The first is that such links as there are, link (2 out of 3 times) to NATCO itself. That's promotion. Secondly, phrases like "an independent, locally-owned communications company" are the sorts of things present in advertising and not in encyclopedia articles. I wouldn't have deleted the article had that phrasing been the only concern, as it's possible to rewrite an article to avoid that kind of wording, but that combined with the lack of third-party coverage equates to promotional content.
You mention that there was no attempt to drive sales or mention of pricing. That's true, but only one part of what "promotion" is. If I sing the praises of my local Indian takeaway, for example, I'm promoting it just as surely as if I'm putting a menu in your letterbox. The same applies if I suggest you might want to vote in a certain way (or at all) in any political contest.
Lastly, you mentioned Comcast as a sort of "comparison point". The article on that company contains extensive third-party coverage of a wide variety of things to do with the business. Admittedly, Comcast is substantially larger than NATCO, so there's going to be more coverage available, but it's that third-party coverage point again.
What you could do if you want to re-create the article would be to create it first as a draft. You can therefore look for and add any references etc that you need, and then submit that for review. If it passes that review, then it can be moved into the main article-space here on Wikipedia, without the risk that an incomplete version would be re-deleted while you add to it. You're able to keep drafts active as long as you like, with the one caveat that a draft not actively improved in 6 months is up for deletion again. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Moved to the appropriate location

Hey, i'm just writing you about my article you just deleted. The article you deleted was told to me to be revised and that's what I did following you guys nobility policy. I don't understand why it keeps getting deleted than again i'm trying to follow you guys guidelines as much as possible. Thanks for your time...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngthunder (talkcontribs)

The article to which I assume you refer was Young thunder. There are a couple of points I would raise here. The first is that there wasn't exactly a request that you "revise" the article, so much as a series of comments on your Talk page and the article/s you've created indicating that Wikipedia does have very strict policies regarding the notability of article subjects, and that Young Thunder did not give any indications of meeting those. You do have a chance to revise an article while it's up for Speedy Deletion, but unless those revisions overcome the issues raised, the article risks being deleted.
Secondly, there was a period of nearly two hours between the article being (re)-created and the Speedy Deletion tag being added, and a further three hours plus before I deleted it. During this time, you were aware of the fact that the article could be deleted and did not edit it at all. I appreciate that you may have been busy, but I don't see any "revising" of the article over that time.
Lastly, if it's genuinely a case of neeing to revise the article and find some more sources, I would strongly recommend creating the article as a Draft. As long as such an article is still being worked on (usually, that translates to "as long as you've not ignored it for 6 months or so"), you have time to expand, source and re-write the best possible article. Once you think it's ready, it can be checked by another editor and moved into the main body of the encyclopedia if indeed it is ready.
If you choose this option, please do remember that Wikipedia would need multiple, non-trivial, third-party coverage of the subject. For this reason, a lot of articles about people at the very beginning of their careers tend to get rejected, just because the subjects haven't yet got the kind of "traction" that makes them notable. For this reason, among others, writing about yourself is usually discouraged, as it's very difficult to remain neutral and provide verifiable sources.
Happy to discuss further if need be. Just respond below this message to keep everything tidy. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hallo! ICYMI, you deleted the 4th iteration, created after he similarly messaged me and instead of appealing to deletion review as I suggested. Tschau. Dlohcierekim 13:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I knew it was an iteration greater than the first, but opted to confine my response to the one I'd deleted (although I made reference to "article/s", as I suspected that the same problem would have applied). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiki page deleted retrieval

Can i have my wiki page back because it has all of my info in it and i seriously need it before thursday when my project is due. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalil0329 (talkcontribs) 05:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Coming up. As discussed, I'll add it to your Sandbox so that you can use the information. That said, I will be forced to deliver a very strong warning to you as well, due to your move of my Talk page, which is entirely not on. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Userfy request

Hi, could you please restore Aristocratic and royal writings and works to my userspace when you get a chance? I'd like to take a look at it. Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. I've put it into the sub-page "aristocratic" from your userpage for now, but you're free to park it where you like, of course. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Saw it in passing and just wanted to check if anything useful can be salvaged from it -- probably not. Herostratus (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
No worries at all. Certainly my take on it when reviewing the CSD tag was that there was the germ of something interesting in it, but that if it were to be shorn of the arbitrariness and OR, it probably wouldn't amount to much. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah. It was a marginal speedy, but probably justified. As a practical matter, an article in that kind of shape would never be kept, so... User should have worked on in in draft. Actually I think he kept a copy. BTW take a gander at user's userpage if you want to see something... different... =/ Herostratus (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

About G1 vs non-English

Concerning your declining of this G1 nomination: I am well aware that merely not being in English is not a valid reason for G1 speedy deletion, but that only covers "coherent non-English material". Even in Portuguese however, that page is an incoherent mix of text snippets, copy-pasted from various unrelated websites. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the wording of the criterion is that. In the absence of a translation from the Portuguese or any serious ability on my part to read that language, assuming good faith is the "better" call to make. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Martin-Luc Archambault

Hi there, I understand why you deleted my page Martin-Luc Archambault on wikipedia. Although, I do believe this was a mistake. I would like to get the content back to be able to work on it, improve it and make the tone different for it to be conform to the rules of Wiki Commons.

My email is tanya@ampme.com if you'd like to send the content to me. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanyagauthiier (talkcontribs)

The version as written was irredeemably promotional in scope. Is there a reason you would require this, rather than starting afresh to write an article which will be more suitable? Additionally, please note that new content on a user's Talk page is customarily placed at the bottom of the page in a new section, rather than wherever you'd like it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of 360 Fitness Superstore article

Hello. I noticed the entry for "360 Fitness Superstore" has been deleted by you. Could you please communicate to me what specific copy was deemed too promotional, as compared to a business description utilizing information available publicly through data-based sources or reputable publications? I would be happy to provide (or request) a reformatted article based on the suggestions, along with removal of any sources deemed biased. Thank you. Fitnesschmedia (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Looking at the article as it was written before deletion, the bulk of the article was a recapitulation of what the store sells and the services provided (the "room planner", for example). Additionally, the external links provided from The News Leader, Travel Weekly and She Knows Media were almost entirely promotional material ("360 Fitness Superstore has to be the first choice" etc), as well as the first two of those being very similar in their content. There's a secondary issue in that the article didn't necessarily demonstrate the notability of the business. While the fact that it's "one of the oldest" family-run businesses - in that field and geographical area, I assume from the wording - that doesn't really get it over the bar. The fact that the business has a number of notable clients is a good start, but notability isn't "inherited" (just because Bank of America is notable, anyone supplying products to the bank isn't automatically so, in other words). In this regard, I'm also going to point to the fact that the sources provided tended just to mention the business in passing (the Huffington Post article is a good example here) when they weren't just reading like press releases, which tends to count against notability as well. Hopefully this helps, but I'm happy to discuss further if need be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Bertinchamps Brewery

Hi there !

It recently came to my knowledge that you had deleted my translation of a French article about the Bertinchamps Brewery. First of all, as it was part of a school project, I would like to get the content back. Could you please leave it in my talk page? Secondly, I have to admit that I do not fully understand why you had to delete it, and it's all the more confusing as the French page still exists. It was only the description and history of a brewery that does exist in Belgium. Could you please tell me your reasons?

Thank you!

Kind regards,

Justine-SL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justine-SL (talkcontribs) 10:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I can certainly put the last version of it into your Sandbox. Give me about 10-15 minutes after I've written this response here, and it'll be all yours. To respond to your questions about why it was deleted:
  • The existence or lack thereof of a French-language article doesn't enter into consideration. Just as there being other articles about small breweries (or not) on this Wikipedia, it doesn't speak to the merits of this particular article.
  • Looking at what I take to be the French article (I have sub-tourist-level French, so I can't speak to the content itself), there's not an awful lot in the way of sourcing or references there either. I see a link to the brewery's official page and what appears to be an inline reference to a blog. I suspect, with my earlier caveat about my language skills, that an article along these lines in the English Wikipedia would be at some level of risk.
  • Now, to the article itself. The "speedy deletion" tag placed on it said that the article did not "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". When I see an article tagged like this, I ask myself "What is important or could be important about this subject?" In terms of a Belgian brewery, my answers were "It could be very old, very large, have won awards, use an unusual brewing process, or something else." None of these were the case in this article. Remember, it's not just a case of "does the brewery exist?" I'm sure it does.
  • The "History" section made the point that the brewery had only been going since 2013 - while that's still 4 years, and therefore a good start, there are plenty of businesses which are around that age and that by itself doesn't determine significance or importance (particularly when we remember that Belgian breweries are often a couple of centuries old).
  • Also in the "History" section, there was the point that the farm which the family had bought was quite old. This is promising, but didn't really link to the significance of the brewery itself (depending on what sources there are out there, an article on a very old Belgian farm could advance claims of significance). It sounds harsh, but if I start a business and rent an office in an old building, for example, it doesn't mean that my business is significant, just that the old building is possibly significant.
  • The "History" section made reference to the capacity of the brewery. Without any context, there's no way of knowing if those numbers are especially large or significant in any regard. The same is true for the master brewer - was his previous employment of significance beyond the fact that he was a brewer at a place? Remember, again, that even if he was significant, the brewery he runs may not necessarily be.
  • The article makes mention that the beers have a protected-origin kind of label. Again, while that's a good thing (I'm partial to a good Belgian beer, just quietly), it doesn't speak to significance. It just says that the beers are brewed in a certain way.
  • Lastly, there's an unsourced claim saying that the bottles of beer are of an "uncommon capacity". While that's theoretically a claim of significance, it's really scraping the bottom of the barrel, to be brutally honest. The fact that bottles of a given capacity is used really doesn't say "this is therefore a significant brewery".
  • Additionally, I can see that there are similar problems with the sourcing in the English article to those in the French one. Even if there were to be a "credible claim of importance or significance", there'd be every chance that the article would be deleted in another way (WP:AfD|this one, specifically]]), had it not been tagged the way it was.
  • I always suggest that users read up on Wikipedia's concept of "notability", as well as the suggestions for writing your first article in situations like these. I'm happy to help if those guidelines are confusing in any way - just leave a note here, or start another section if the question doesn't relate to this article. Likewise, if you have any questions about what I've said here, just reply and I'll help out as best I can. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

In the process of nominating Leta Sobierajski for a Speedy a7 I discovered that you actually already deleted this page after its previous a7 nomination. It appears that page creator @Weelarkobar: recreated the page within 24 hours of its deletion. nerdgoonrant (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

That does happen, and more often than I'd like to think it does. I can see you've tagged it now, so assuming it still qualifies for an A7 deletion (I'm not in a position to review it right away, but others are bound to), I suspect it will be deleted again reasonably soon. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

added Doug BellDennis BrownClpo13ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusBYandmanBjarki SOldakQuillShyamJondelWorm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous


The Signpost: 9 June 2017

Speedy deletion declined: Néstor Ick

Hello BigHaz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Néstor Ick, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Subject might be important/significant (see also Google News/Books hits for this subject) / use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead to allow other editors to participate in this decision. Thank you. SoWhy 12:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for letting me know. I'll review the situation and see if there's a better way forward. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Open access

Hello can you please get into the open access project instead of marking for deletion I think you help could be really important for the project Best Filippo Morsiani (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I've not joined a project in several years, generally because I don't consider myself enough of a "specialist" in any of the areas I've seen projects in to be of any real assistance. Open access is most definitely one of those such areas - I have a general understanding of what it is, but nowhere near enough of a one to be of anything like the level of assistance I would wish to be in joining a project. That being said, regardless of whether I'd be part of the project or not, I'd still be duty-bound to mark the pages for deletion where they are. No objection to the generation of content by any means, but "drive-by" articles like this (without links or sources, full of typos and a dramatic excess of technical verbiage at the expense of the tone articles are normally written in) are precisely the kind of thing new page patrolling and the deletion process are designed to catch. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello again BigHaz, It seams that many of your mark for deletion comes with a very similar not saying "Unreferenced article indicating that there is practically no open access in Bahrain. Therefore, a non-notable subject" what does it means precisely? 1 the articles are not un referenced at all, please take the time to scroll down to check... 2 the fact that there is little or no open access movement in a specific country is already of interest. As I was saying before please leave these articles alone while myself and the open access folk will edit and improve them, those articles are the skeleton of what the articles will become, this is the project page were you can have a better understanding on the subject. please read this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_Nations/Open_Access_Descriptions Filippo Morsiani (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)thank you

I've responded on your Talk page as well (I missed the notification for this somehow), but for clarity's sake, I'll respond here as well. "Unreferenced" means precisely what it says on the tin. There are no inline citations, and a template making a vague claim that the article incorporates text from another source. Great as far as it goes, but you've been advised by at least one other experienced editor (as well as me) that inline citations are required. Therefore, there's no sourcing.
With regards to the notability of the subject, that's the point. If the most that can be said about open access in (to take your example) Bahrain is "there really isn't any open access in Bahrain", there really isn't any desperate need to have a separate article on it, and one on San Marino, one on Monaco, one on X, one on Y and so on and so forth. Frankly, that's even more the case when the article takes several hundred words to say that, which many of these do. To take an example from popular culture, when there are articles on television series, there also tend to be articles on the major characters in those series (the Simpson family all have their own articles, as well as there being one for the show they star in). Less significant characters where the most that can be said about them is "XYZ is in these episodes and has red hair" don't get their own articles, but they instead turn up in an article about "Characters on The Simpsons".
If an article is created in mainspace, it needs to pass certain checks, and the notability of the subject is one of them. If it doesn't pass those checks, then deletion is a very common outcome. If the plan is to have the "skeletons" of the articles expanded, perhaps it would be best to create them as Drafts. That way, you or others can expand them when you get the chance and then move them into the main body of the encyclopedia when they're ready (when another editor will look them over and make that call as well). Simply copying and pasting a mass of words from another location and leaving them there (I note those articles have been in existence for over a month and were largely untouched apart from very minor fixes from other users in that time) is never a method of ensuring the long-term survival of an article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi BigHaz, I understand your concern regarding the relevance of articles. We tried to ignite interest, by creating and disseminating articles on countries were open access unfortunately is not a thing yet, more than describing the policies and organization that exist. Anyway can't really say thank you for deleting them but I understand were you are coming from. Filippo Morsiani (talk) 09:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I think therein lies another important point. Wikipedia's not a platform for "igniting interest" or getting campaigns going, so much as it is an encyclopedia that can contain articles talking about campaigns which have already got going. Once open access becomes a thing in (say) Syria or Tajikistan or anywhere it isn't yet, there's no problem recreating the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

El Chapo act

Hey buddy thanks for reviewing my article but you forgot to remove the template. THE DIAZ talkcontribs 02:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Good point, so I did. All good now, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Lady Red Couture

In reference to Lady Red...I commented all over the place and do not know how else to defend it. All of the RuPaul queens have pages And the person has IMDB and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonny_McGovern has an entry. I do not get why the editors always are picking on me and things I enter. I was told that if it was someone else, things would be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photolarry (talkcontribs) 01:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the spelling of McGovern's name. That explains why I couldn't find him. To address the points you've raised: All the RuPaul queens have pages. They may do, but it's very possible that all of the others have more coverage than Lady Red Couture does. Looking at her article, for example, there's presently no information even linking her to RuPaul, which suggests that she may be less notable than the others you've mentioned. I couldn't pretend to be sure without looking at all of the articles in question, and I don't intend to do that right now. The person has IMDB. Not bad, but IMDB simply proves that she exists (remember, the fact that you and I exist doesn't mean we get Wikipedia articles). Additionally, IMDB can be edited by practically anybody, so it's not usually taken as being a particularly reliable source (the same goes for Wikipedia sourcing itself - you'd be amazed how many hoaxes or wildly inaccurate claims show up here every now and again). McGovern has an entry. As discussed earlier, the fact that X has an entry and Y doesn't isn't a reason to create an entry on Y (or an argument for Y's entry staying). Looking very briefly at McGovern's entry, I can see 6 references - one admittedly to YouTube, but still 5 others - as well as immense amounts of detail on things he's done. Without picking everything there apart, it may simply be that he's more notable than Lady Red Couture is. I do not get why the editors always are picking on me and things I enter. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I'm not picking on you - until I tagged that article, I'm pretty sure we'd never interacted before (so we're clearly getting off on the wrong foot...). The way Wikipedia works is that anyone who writes an article makes their writing available to be edited, critiqued and so on by everyone else. I've had it done to me, and so's everyone else. I can see there've been a number of articles you wrote which have been deleted or at least considered for deletion - so it's probably worthwhile to look at those policies I linked you to earlier and see if you're able to create articles in line with them. There's even the ability to create articles as Drafts (which I can see you have done before) so that other users can look at them before they even "become articles". This may be less confrontational as a process, potentially. I was told that if it was someone else, things would be fine.. I can give this a definite "maybe". "Things would be fine" if the article were on a notable subject, written from a neutral point of view and supported with reliable sources. There are articles I'd love to write, but I don't know if I'd be able to get the required depth of sources, so doing so is a bit of a risky business. The same applies here, I think. Lastly, when you're commenting on Talk pages and so on, could you "sign" your posts? Just type the tilde character (~) four times. It's also probably a good idea to create a new section when you're commenting about something new on someone's Talk page, just makes it easier to see what's going on. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

No you are wrong. IMDB is much more critical than Wikipedia. I can create a page but the likelihood of it staying live is low because they are more strict about creation of entries than Wikipedia is. And they fact check more. I do not know what else to say. I have given as much information as I can to defend this article. I even mentioned her partner on the show. And If you want a reference from RuPaul, message her/him. Also just google Lady Red if you want more info. I think there is plenty out there. I am not a professional editor. I live in LA and know many famous people. One of which is Lady Red and I saw she had no entry. So I created it. I was shocked that McGovern had it but she did not. They are on the same show and she is even mentioned in his article. I give up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photolarry (talkcontribs) 01:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not here to get into an argument about the merits or lack thereof about IMDB. My comments in that regard were based on the community consensus here, rather than any personal opinion. As far as there being more information out there is concerned, I'll admit that I've not found any, but if there is, you're entirely free to add it (with sources, of course). If that extra information confirms the notability of this particular person, then I'll happily withdraw the deletion nomination. That sort of thing happens pretty frequently. I know it can be annoying to have put a lot of work into an article only for someone to turn up and say "I don't think this is going to stay here" - it happened to me years ago too, and it frustrated me a lot, but I learned from it and read up on the policies and guidelines here and went from there. If you've added as many sources as there are into the article, then that does perhaps suggest that the subject isn't sufficiently notable as yet to merit an article - she may qualify down the line, of course, but just not yet. Lastly, I'm not sure why you keep making the point that you're not a "professional editor". I'm not either. With the exception of any editors here who in fact edit books for a living (and there are some), nobody here is "professional" at this - we're all volunteers, just like you. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

New section again

(Powerfulideas (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Thank you

I removed the PROD you placed because somehow it had been recreated after the original PROD without my noticing it. It is now at the AfD above. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

How odd. I've been using the "Twinkle" extension for PRODs and it's normally seemed to catch those instances before. Wonder why not here. Oh well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from List of retired numbers in sports, which you proposed for deletion. There are valid concerns but I don't think it's an immediate Delete, for reasons given in Talk:List of retired numbers in sports. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Certes (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll have a look at the reasons cited and see where we go. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Independent Engineer: Proposed for Deletion

BigHaz, thanks for taking the time to review my first article. While I understand your concern for a lack of citations, references are not readily available. Independent Engineer is a word of art and most people, who are not in the project finance world, do not know what an Independent Engineer is or what they do. The primary reason for me writing this article was that because Owner's Engineer incorrectly stated that an Owner's Engineer and an Independent Engineer are the same thing. That is like saying Cricket and Baseball are the same thing. The other issue is that an Independent Engineer is different than an independent engineer. An Independent Engineer is a proper noun for a specific type of engineering, and an independent engineer is an engineer who is on their own. So, I removed your proposed deletion, BUT I understand your concerns. Any suggestions on improving the article would be appreciated, but if you feel strongly about deleting Independent Engineer, then Owner's Engineer should be reviewed as well. Thanks. T Markell (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the "if you want to delete X, please delete Y" argument, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Each article needs to stand or fall on its own merits, rather than those of any other article. Regarding the article itself, I appreciate the points you've raised, and would make a couple of minor suggestions (not being any kind of engineer myself, I'm not going to presume to edit the article as I suspect I'd introduce errors rather than anything else. Firstly, if the article on "Owner's Engineer" (which I note is similarly unreferenced) suggests that the two concepts are the same, it may be a simple case of editing that article to explain the distinction between the two, rather than writing an entire article at present. Obviously if the distinction is as strong as "they do completely different things", then the second article is a better option, much like your cricket v baseball example. Secondly, both articles are unreferenced at present. The net result is that to a non-specialist such as me, there's no way of knowing whether this is absolutely true or just your opinion (until you made the comment you did, of course!). So there's a risk that someone else might have a look at the article you wrote and form much the same conclusion as I did. Again, not being a specialist, I really wouldn't know where to start looking for sources explaining the duties of either position, but adding references to at least the Independent Engineer article, if not both, isn't a bad move. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

New section a user opted not to create

Why you delete my page ? Jume deen khan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamzaali557 (talkcontribs)

Before I respond, please note two things. Firstly, the appropriate place for a new question is the bottom of the Talk page. There's even a convenient tab reading "New Section" you can click on to open a new section and leave a message. Secondly, please sign your posts on Talk pages. Just type four of the "tilde" (~) character. Now, to answer your question, I've deleted the "Jume deen khan" page twice. The second was because the article consisted of the question "Why you are deleting my this page?", which isn't appropriate article content. The first time I deleted the page was because it had been tagged as being about a person, but not indicating this person's notability, or even any claim to significance, as the message on your Talk page indicated when the article was tagged that way. The article described him as "one of the top famous hindi bloggers", but that doesn't really mean anything, to be honest. Has he won or been nominated for an award? Has he achieved something significant in his career? If so, you would need to indicate this in the article. You would also need to support that with reliable sources, because there would still be a risk that the article would be deleted. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Question about a recently deleted article

Hello BigHaz

We created an article yesterday for Bit Source. Can you give me more information on why the article was removed and how I can make it non-promotional? We've had a lot of national attention because of our mission - which is to train ex-coal industry professionals to do software development. We are poised in the middle of this transition between an industrial and technological age and we are pioneering the transition of the workforce. That's what I wanted to highlight with the article - but I also wanted to include enough references to validate the legitimacy of the article. Any help you can give me would be greatly appreciated. There are also some other organizations that are pioneering this transition as well as partner organizations facilitating the change - would including them in a history section be more informative?

Thanks for your help! Also, if you are an admin is there any way you could send me a copy of the article I wrote?

Thanks

- Payton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paytonmay (talkcontribs) 12:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC) ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paytonmay (talkcontribs) 14:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy to at least address the first part of your question. A couple of things before I do, though. The first is that it's always best practice to sign your posts on Talk pages (just type the tilde character 4 times). The second is that if you're after information like this, it's always important to provide the full page title - that was presumably the only page deleted yesterday which you had a connection to, but it was far from the only one I deleted, and without seeing the link to the deleted page on your Talk page, I would have been working blind trying to bring up the history.
By and large, the "promotionality" of the article was based on its tone. The "Inception" section was entirely unencyclopedic in tone, and the "Awards" section read as a press release or advertising copy as well. The "Recognition" section was slightly better, but simply contained a list of times that the company had been mentioned in the media (and in one case, seems to have lifted a goodly portion of its text from that news mention as well). Even the opening - where the company is described as "locally owned" - was a red flag. "Locally owned" is precisely the kind of material you expect to find in advertising, but which is completely meaningless when you're writing an article for an online encyclopedia which could be read by practically anyone anywhere.
Including other businesses may help, but ultimately this really is the kind of thing to start all over again. Have a look at other articles written about businesses here - both big and small. You'll see that the ones without tags or issues have what can probably be called a tone of "Just the facts, ma'am". To harp on about "locally owned" again, they actually specify where they're based. They don't tell heartwarming stories about the founders having a chat in the car, and if they do refer back to press releases, they don't just plonk them into the article.
As far as sending you a copy of the article, it really doesn't seem like a good idea at this stage. This isn't an exercise in just needing to add some extra references and move some paragraphs around. It's a case of starting from scratch again. I know that can be frustrating, but that's how it is.
Lastly, you mention that "we" created the article. You may not be aware of it, but Wikipedia has a pretty strict policy on usernames and use of accounts by more than one user. I would strongly urge you to review those policies if there are indeed multiple contributors using this account and adjust your use accordingly. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Tomato sauce (condiment)

Thanks for approving the speedy delete. It is possible to retrieve the content on the talk page though, in the hopes of avoiding another cycle of the page creation? I am also going to make it a redirect to ketchup. Cheers! Savvyjack23 (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It is. I can put that (with "nowiki" tags around it) into your userspace in about half an hour or so, so keep an eye out. I note that there's also already an article on tomato sauce without the bracketed "condiment" as it stands, too. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Hey, I saw ur deletion recommendation message. Do not delete my potential NFL expansion page yet as i'ts not done. Also, the wiki has a similar potential NHL expansion page. Tell admin not to delete it. I'll be away until the 22nd so don't delete the article in that time. Please reply. CoRo834 (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar. Very kind of you. As far as the page goes, I won't be deleting it myself, and that decision will come down to what the consensus is in the AfD discussion. They normally last for a week or so, those discussions. You're welcome to - if you haven't already - put your "side of the story" in that discussion, and it will be considered as much as anyone else's. Regarding both of those pages, if they're not yet done and still in need of a lot of work, there's always the option of creating them as "Drafts". That way, you can work on them on your own schedule, without anyone else nominating them for deletion. If you haven't worked on a draft in 6 months, then it can be deleted, but I doubt that would be an issue for you. Once you feel you've got them to a good standard, you then get another editor (not me, I don't do that particular task) to review it and see if it can be moved into the main body of the encyclopedia. I mention this particularly because of the mention you made of an NHL expansion article. I don't follow hockey at all (although perhaps one day I'll get my head around it), but I do understand there's just been some expansion in that league, so there's a chance that an article on "potential expansion" there would be even more speculation than the NFL one currently is, if that makes sense. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

New Film Article Page Reviews.

Hey, thanks for reviewing the film articles I created. I hope I did sufficient sourcing work, particularly in a few instances where my sources were limited. I was wondering if you'd be so kind as to review my other 2 unreviewed pages. (How does that work, out of curiosity? If you review and approve, nothing changes. Otherwise, if you disapprove, do you inform me that I need to improve it? Or just leave word on the page itself or its talk page?)

I'd like you to examine A Woman, a Part. IMO, out of the 6 I've created thus far, it's my best work. I did my best to add the mixture of opinions in the Critics' Response section. The only section I didn't include was plot. I'm waiting to actually watch the film first before I compose that section, so as to avoid spoiling it for myself. ;) Otherwise, I feel the most confident about this one. Perhaps one of these days, I'll earn some barnstars or something. I haven't netted one of those since my days monitoring shows such as Top Chef.

The last page is Letters from Baghdad. Not ashamed to admit this is probably my weakest effort. It's a documentary, so there's less coverage right now. But I gathered as much as I could to prepare a bare-bones stub page. Hopefully that groundwork was adequate enough, but that's why I wanted you to check it out and determine if it's acceptable enough as a stub or requires some more work to be, er, up to code I suppose.

If you could take a look at those pages when you have some free time and review them, I'd appreciate it greatly. :D Thanks so much, and keep up the good work. I'm happy to be finally making more valuable contributions as opposed to just the occasional factual or grammatical edits in sporadic doses. I'll most likely be involved in film, awards, and cast/crew of said films, but in time broaden my efforts to American Idol and beyond. Take care, and let me know.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 10:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The reviewing I do is literally a case of starting at the back of the "unpatrolled" list of recently-created pages (which is alarmingly large, but that's possibly a good thing as it shows that everyone's busily creating pages) and moving forwards - catching whatever was there - until I start to reach "saturation point". So while I'd love to say "I'll review this for you", I really don't want to make that guarantee as I want to make sure I give everything I come to the benefit of fresh eyes. As far as my methods are concerned (others may have their own), I use the tagging process to flag any issues - if sources are missing or whatever, I'll flag that, if there are typos I'll jump in and fix those - then move onto the next article. So you're right that nothing (major, at least) changes when I review an article, beyond the odd tag here or there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that you've ever got thanked for a routine administrative chore...

@BigHaz: I doubt that you've ever gotten thanked for a routine administrative chore such as your speedy deletion of Rindler coordinates/Draft. But the effort of guys like you doing all of this essential legwork really are essential for the Wikipedia project to be successful. So thanks! I appreciate it! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I was back in my sort of "first life" thanked for similar elbow-grease work, but it's been a while between drinks, so much appreciated likewise. Glad you were happy with the deletion, too, as I'd thought afterwards that perhaps simply moving it into draft-space would have been the better move, but we'll do it as we did. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
User:VQuakr already had me re-create the version in draft space. User:D.H added many new revisions to Rindler coordinates which User:JRSpriggs reverted. I see a lot of good stuff in D.H's additions, and appreciate the points that JRSpriggs raised. I thought a Draft version would be good for D.H to work on his additions until they are up to snuff. I've worked with D.H on various occasions in the past and know him to be very knowledgeable, but occasionally needing help to express himself properly in the English language.
Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like the matter is well in hand. Very useful, since I can't even begin to claim any knowledge about the topic! BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


Thank you and Question regarding your review of R.W. Allard

Hello, Thank you for your review of R.W. Allard. I would like to edit the "R.W. Allard" title, but I do not know how to alter the title of the page. Can you Advise? I want it changed to "Robert W. Allard (Geneticist)". Thanking you in advance. Steven C. Price 13:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right that altering the title of the page is more challenging, as it actually requires the ability to move it (as against just editing), which Admins can do and some experienced non-Admins can too. I was wondering about moving it myself, to be honest, but left it as was because I didn't know if he's usually referred to by the initials. Usually, we wouldn't have him with the bracketed "Geneticist" in the page title unless there were two or more Robert W. Allards, and there don't seem to be. So I've moved him to Robert W. Allard for now, and he can be moved to something more specific if there's another person with the same name later on. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank You!Steven C. Price 19:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for reviewing my Sugoi Japan Award's article! DarkFallenAngel (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)