User talk:Bobet/archive3

No Consensus

Would you mind explaining what you mean by "No Consensus" with regards to the AfD decision for Philica?

It means there's no strong consensus to either delete or keep the article, and it therefore defaults to getting kept, but there's nothing to stop it from getting nominated again (as opposed to a 'keep'-result, where the article usually should not get nominated again with the same reasoning). In this case, I'm pretty sure someone will nominate the article for deletion again pretty soon unless its notability is clearly established, since the 'keep' comments had weak reasonings behind them and the article itself doesn't back them up. - Bobet 11:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've copied your reply here in case you don't check my Talk page. Anyway, will you please be more specific on how notability is clearly established? Please do not refer me to the AfD info page -- it's tres ambiguous, and albeit there are tons of people handing out AfD nom's, no one seems to care about making the exact criteria obvious and clear -- just give me a brief listing off the top of your head the criteria you use for clearly settling AfD disputes. Also, other than being a stub, how does the article not back up the reasonings mentioned for keep? Yosofun 04:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

RE:Removing the uncategorized tags

Thank you for informing me about this. I thought that as long as an article as a category, even it is a stub category, I would be able to remove the {{uncategorized}} tags. Please let me know if I make anymore mistakes in my editing in the future. Thanks! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bobet

Hi. Just because four people think it meets the notability requirements doesn't mean it does. I have pointed out why it doesn't meet the notability requirements. It falls under the exceptions ("price listings in product catalogues, or listings on software download sites"). As far as the validity of sources, InsidePulse is a fansite ran by fans; it doesn't qualify. At absolute positively MOST there are two web sites (and that's pushing it; IGN is really the only really reputable one) that we have found which cover the game and can be considered reputable web sites. The requirements in WP:SOFTWARE state "multiple non-trivial published works." As far as I can see, my standing as a responsible Wikipedian should hold some degree of merit against the concerns of these three or four anonymous editors who disagree with the inclusion of the tags.JB196 20:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Crying Fist

Hi. I had looked at the review before I re-added it. It seemed to be a decent review with information not in the Wik article. I don't know any-thing else about the reviewer and aren't sure why You call him/her a spammer. But if You have a better review link, go ahead and make a switch. Kdammers 10:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put the link in originally, so I can't vouch for the reasons it was included. I can only speak for my quick take on the review after noting that a review had been deleted. As far as names go, I don't think "Google" is a very serious sounding name - Internet names are nothing I use in making judgments about sites. Kdammers 10:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Woughton/Woughton on the Green

Thanks for fixing my move to Woughton. I know that a cut and paste move is deprecated but didn't believe it important enough to ask for admin support. Let me know if it is actually more important than it seems. Also, do I need to do anything to the interwiki links? --Concrete Cowboy 12:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried moving (like you said, I expected a simple redirect to give way but it didn't). Ok, now I see why it is important to move the history too. --Concrete Cowboy 12:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Legion page move

I got confused at first. I was unaware of the amount of steps involved on this. Best wishes, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 09:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem, it just had to have its history merged before the pagemove was completed, for clarity's sake. - Bobet 09:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That's great. Cheers, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 09:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Grand Hotel Priština

I need to revert a page I moved after misunderstanding a particular user's comments (very poor English) in the article talk page. Though the name of the town in En.Wikipedia is Priština (see current RQM debate at Talk:Priština, the official name of the hotel is Grand Hotel Prishtina, using Albanian language transliteration. I tried to revert it myself but it does not seem to be possible somehow. I would appreciate your help on this if you can. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 16:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. - Bobet 17:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt action once again. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 17:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks! Thank you very much for your comments on my recent Request for Adminship. The request was ultimately unsuccessful - which wasn't entirely surprising - and so I'll be taking special care to address your concerns before running again. If you have any feedback for me, please don't hesitate to leave it at my talk page. Thanks! -- RandyWang (chat/patch) 14:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

About Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikaru Koto 2

I count 5 votes for delete (including my nomination) and 3 votes to keep. Wouldn't that be concensus? Or what's the difference in votes necessary for it to be considered concensus? --- Hong Qi Gong 21:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, please consider the fact that those who voted to keep the article aren't giving very good justification. Google hits has been determined to be inaccurate for determining the notability of porn stars. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Mumbai officials

Since the template is redundant, I have deleted it. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A RfA thank you from en:User:Xyrael

WikiThanks

File:AviXyrael.gif

I'd like to thank you Bobet for either supporting, opposing, commenting, nominating, reading, editing, promoting and/or anything else that you may have done for my successful request for adminship (I've broken the one thousand sysop barrier!); I'm thanking you for getting involved, and for this I am very grateful. I hope to be able to serve Wikipedia more effectively with my new tools and that we can continue to build our free encyclopedia, for knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty. Please do feel free to get in touch if you feel you can improve me in any way; I will be glad to listen to all comments. Again, thanks 8)             —Xyrael / 12:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review for Yuria Kato

Hi, Bobet. The article on Yuria Kato was recently deleted per this discussion in which no attempt was made to establish notability for her name in Japanese until my last-minute comment. Consequently, I believe crucial and pertinent information was not brought up in the discussion (including a significant presence at Japanese Amazon, and her own article on Japanese Wikipedia), and the subject was given a drastically increased appearance of non-notability due to a Google search only on her name in Roman letters. As you recently participated in a similar discussion, I thought you might want to chime in at that Deletion review I have started on the matter. Regards. Dekkappai 17:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

JPD's RfA

Thanks, Bobet, for your support at my RfA, which finished with a tally of 94/1/0. I hope I live up to the confidence you have shown in me in my activities as an administrator. JPD (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I had undeleted Bones for Life at user request so they could copy the material. But that was screwed up to delete the AfD instead of the article on Walter Keim, thanks for catching that, I will undertake to be more careful in future.

Feature story

On 8 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Feature story, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hi Bobet, thanks for the DYK contribution! Quite a good start and I hope it'll be expanded even more with the main page exposure. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 18:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Adil Hossain Nobel

I have noticed when you closed the above AfD, you did not remove the category template, "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD". By deleting this when closing it pulls the discussion out of the category. I have deleted it from this discussion, but if you could review any other closures you have done recently and remove the tag from them it would be greatly appreicated. Thanks. --Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 14:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Reverting the edits made by sockpuppets of indefinitely banned users isn't vandalism. The page in concern was protected for 2 weeks, during which you made no effort to discuss and instead got yourself banned for an unrelated issue. Please use the talk page before making any more changes there, thanks. - Bobet 20:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of User talk:86.143.175.215

I saw that you have blocked this anonIP. He has broken the 3RR rule and removed warnings, but his edits do not constitute as vandalism since they are merely bold (and therefore controversial) edits. Thanks. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 23:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 14:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Closing afds

Please don't close afd discussions you've taken part in. It hurts more than helps in every case. Thanks. - Bobet 13:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, my mistake. ant_ie 17:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki capitalization

What is the reason for capitalizing words like "talk", "contribs", and "block"? These are not sentences and it looks better not capitalized. —Centrx→talk • 00:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting these. Let's have a discussion, please. Dysprosia 07:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It is prudent to make it consistent with what already exists on the site, otherwise one has to change every other link around to match the new scheme. In any case, changing "Block log" to "block log" changes the title on the page to "block log", which is unacceptable. One may wish to submit a bug report, if this is an issue. Dysprosia 07:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There are also other user templates which have links in a similar format, they would have had to be changed as well. This is why if any inconsistency in the interface arises, it should be changed to what exists already. As we cannot do this because of a MediaWiki bug, then we should sort out the bug. Regardless if you still favour capitalization, you should start up a discussion on it, as I'm sure other users will have opinions on this as well. Dysprosia 08:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Re addendum: It is a bug; it does not affect functionality, but is a bug regarding consistency and design in the sense that there is no MediaWiki link to link to the log page, while there are MediaWiki links to the block page, and so on. Dysprosia 08:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "Category:Asian porn star" from Asian countries

Hi, Bobet. It seems a certain editor, whose attempts to have articles deleted within the category of Asian porn stars have been failing of late, is now depopulating the "Category:Asian porn stars" by removing this category from each country within the category ("Category:Chinese porn stars", ""Category:Filipino porn stars", etc.). Following his usual pattern, he is instigating edit wars, and has passed the 3-revert rule on at least two of these. I am not very familiar with the protocol on this sort of thing, and would prefer to spend my limited Wikipedia time working on articles rather than fighting deletions and engaging in nonsensical arguments. Anything you can do to help, or advice you can offer will be much appreciated. Regards. Dekkappai 20:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

My reason is that ethnic groups like the Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc, are not considered "Asian" in the UK. It would be POV to include the "Asian porn star" category in those ethnic-specific categories. See these as a reference[1][2]. - Hong Qi Gong ^{(Talk - Contribs)} 20:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Bobet. Yes, I was trying to get your opinion on the matter. Actually, I can see both sides of the issue too, and think the matter is worth discussing. This is all the more reason the editor should not engage in agressive and provocative deletions and reverting rather than discussing rationally first. I might very well have been on his side on this. However, the editor engages in contradictory reasoning by claiming to remove the categories because East Asians are called "Orientals" in the UK, and then because they are U.S. citizens, not citizens of Asian countries. If the issue is nationality, not ethnicity, then what the ethnicity is called in the UK is a moot point. And is he claiming that China is not considered part of Asia even in the UK? And is he recommending an "Oriental porn star" category? Anyway, the by nationality/by ethnicity issue is certainly one worth debating on the talk pages, and once a consensus is arrived at, the categories should be edited accordingly. The above editor, however, often appears to shove his opinion through on articles just as he has done in this case. I certainly agree with you on the edit warring, which is why I have never engaged in this practise myself, unless you can consider two reverts on one page, which I did twice today, and which is the most I have ever made, "warring." In any case, simply deleting categories, and then reverting the deletions, especially in a category in which one has engaged in contentious mass deletion-nominations seems to be an attempt at provocation. That's my view on it anyway. Thanks again. Dekkappai 21:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I might say the same about your own reverts - why didn't you discuss before reverting my edit? Is that an "attempt at provocation", like you're accusing me of? Moreover, I never claimed that China is not considered part of Asia. I claimed that Chinese people are not referred to as "Asian" in the UK. Big difference. - Hong Qi Gong ^{(Talk - Contribs)} 21:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Phase II clone trooper armor afd box

My apologies, I did in fact miss that other afd discussion. It was a tad passive/aggressive of me to summarily delete your box without a note on your talkpage beforehand, and I apologize for that, too. Cheers, Fernando Rizo 19:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

BC/AD

Hi, there's no consensus on BC/BCE; policy states that both are acceptable. The contention was started by using BCE/CE; BC/AD has been used for 1,000 years. Why are you trying to rewrite history? The "original creator" of a page is not a deity and thus does not own the page. Nice try.

Robert ÆOLUS Myers

Would you be so kind as to revisit comments placed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert ÆOLUS Myers and reconsider your vote. Hiiaka 19:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Santorum controversy

Mistook it for a blanking but have fixed it. Sorry about that.--Dakota 23:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Diomedes Diaz

So why did you revert my edits? They were sourced, and not from opinion websites like your edit summary would indicate. The possibly defamatory content is mr. Diaz's involvement in the death of his fan, which is reported in several reputable places, including a government website [3] (I guess I should've put that as a reference in the first place). Just google for her name and take a pick from the sources. - Bobet 23:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We can't just pick Google sources for a BLP - Google doesn't return info that would qualify as WP:RS for most articles, and even less so for a BLP. :-)

One of the articles was an opinion piece and not news reporting, I don't think the other was a high quality news report either: the people who want to include this content should be able to find information from a reliable source (for example, a notable Colombian newspaper) if they want to include the text. I don't know which Colombian paper has a good archive with a search engine, but the people who want to write the article should know where to find reliable info. Websites aren't reliable sources, less for a BLP. It seems that the main editor now understands the issue, but it concerns me that there was a previous BLP advisory from you in edit history, and he re-inserted the content nonetheless. I only happened across the article because it made a very false claim about Tourette syndrome: I'm not highly interested in writing the article myself. Regards, Sandy 00:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ya, I didn't know much about the subject either (my interest in the subject was that I stumbled upon it on deadendpages in february and wikified it), but the information looks very legitimate, and the Colombian ministry of justice (in my link above) sounds like a reliable source to me, whether it's on the Internet or not.

As for the other source, it's a seemingly popular Colombian newspaper's website, and besides, there's nothing defamatory about saying that some people were killed in a plane crash. - Bobet 00:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be a popular paper, but it reads like an opinion or gossip piece rather than a journalist report, which is exactly what we have to avoid in BLPs. I honestly don't know if it's OK to use un expediente from the ministerio de justicia - I've never been clear on primary vs. secondary sources on original documents like that (per WP:RS). And, it would still behoove the fellow who wants to write the article to find a news report of the incidents, so others don't have to wade through pages of a legal expediente. I search El Universal's archives when I need something on Venezuela, but I don't know which paper to search for Colombia. Again, my bigger concern is that the material continues to be inserted in spite of warnings, so I'd like to encourage the editor to just find a good report, good sources, and not deviate from them, and cite his claims: he has now admitted the Tourette claim wasn't accurate, so progress is being made. The first version I reverted was *highly* inflammatory, overwhelming the rest of the content, amounting to a smear job, and what tipped my interest was the inaccurate Tourette content. If you want to re-insert text based on the ministerio source, I won't object, but I'm really not clear if that qualifies as a primary source, which is discussed on WP:RS. Will leave that to your judgment ... Sandy 00:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I fixed what I could there to at least avoid a WP:BLP violation, but that article is a mess, and I hope to never have to read it again. It looks like the author has a POV. Can you please check over my work, and fix anything you see that needs attention? Regards, Sandy 14:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Europeanization

Yes, it is unsourced original research. How a european country can be europeanized? I suggest to change it to "westernization". Also that article says it was concerned with attacking the serfdom in Russia, while Catherine the Great was a strong proponent of serfdom. --Nixer 18:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insurance Buster

I have noticed when you closed the above AfD, you did not remove the category template, "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD". By deleting this when closing it pulls the discussion out of the category. I have deleted it from this discussion, but if you could review any other closures you have done recently and remove the tag from them it would be greatly appreicated. This is a fairly recent change. The official policy is at WP:AFDC. I have been going through the listing in each of the categories CAT:AFD and removing the tag from pages that are closed and adding the approriate category code for those in the uncatagorised group. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yrjö Kilpinen

Thanks for your work on the article. However, I want to be clear on a few things.

1. You believe that Yrö was a typo or alternate spelling for Yrjö.
2. All points in the Finnish version of Wikipedia match exactly.
3. Are there any other errors my reference might have, if any?

meatclerk 01:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Bobet, Thanks for responding to my question. My interest in the article was to assure as much accuracy as I could for the next person. It appears that you covered the most important points. With that, I am removing the article from my watchlist and just linking to it from my credits list. Thanks again. --meatclerk

Image:The Fourth Man Poster.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:The Fourth Man Poster.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ilse@ 15:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use in portals

As you might know, I've created an amendment for fair use in portals after the discussion, on Wikipedia talk:Fair use. It would be great if you could express your opinion, in support or against. ddcc 01:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

History merges of Sukkah etc.

Sorry but I might be confused about the request. What's supposed to be where? Do you want a dablink to Sukkah (talmud) at Sukkot, while having Sukkah redirect to Sukkot?

Yes.

And is Sukkah (tractate) useful as a redirect to something?

It might be marginally useful as a redirect to Sukkah (Talmud)

And the history of Sukkah should be at Sukkah (talmud)? I just want to be sure before merging histories since separating them afterwards is pretty messy. - Bobet 16:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes - that would be best, I think. --Eliyak T·C 17:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy fix. --Eliyak T·C 17:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:The Fast And The Furious Poster.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:The Fast And The Furious Poster.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. feydey 10:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

For everyone else who's thinking of posting this: I've watchlisted every image I've uploaded and if someone tags them with orphaned fairuse, I'll notice. And furthermore, I don't care, since they've probably been replaced with a better image. Thanks. - Bobet 13:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A humble request for your opinion

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Recently, you expressed an oppose opinion with regards to my RfA. I would like to thank your feedback on this but I need another critical feedback from you. If you could spare a few minutes to voice any concerns you may be having with regards to my contributions to this project since my last RfA on this page, I would be most grateful. Once again, thank you for your time! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Knox United Curch Calgary

I am Grant Dawson, the Senior Minister at Knox United Church in Calgary, Alberta. On behalf of our Communications and Archives Committees I put the articple on Knox United Church on Wikipedia. No copyright was compromised. Yes it is reproduced on the Knox web page (www.knoxunited.ab.ca). In fact that material on the web page is actually a reproduction of the Wikipedia material.

I would hope that this page can be put back into Wikipedia as soon as possible. Any concerns can be directed to myself (gdawson@knoxunited.ab.ca) or to any of the addresses listed on the Knox web site.

I would hope that in the future anyone removing a page would first check with those who hold the original material to inquire if permission has indeed been given for its use.

Thank you for you help.

Grant Dawson Knox united Church 506 4 St. SW Calgary, Ab Canada T2T 1R3

(403) 266-4126 gdawson@knoxunited.ab.ca

Knox United Curch Calgary (2)

Sorry, was rushing to do this. this is never a good idea.

This last lines should read:

Grant Dawson Knox United Church 506 4 St. SW Calgary, AB Canada T2P 1S7

(403) 266-4136 gdawson@knoxunited.ab.ca