User talk:Deor/Archive16

Re: Javascript?

I've noticed it too and I find it very odd. This is source code, not a page that transcludes templates, so I can't see how or why this is happening. The script itself actually does work as intended, so my guess is that this is a MediaWiki bug. I think I'll inquire about it at the Village pump. Thanks for the heads up! GregorB (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@GregorB: If no enlightenment is forthcoming at the VP (or if you haven't asked there yet), you might try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. Most of the people who understand the precise reasons why pages are listed in the maintenance category (in terms of the technical niceties of {{coord}} coding and usage) seem to have that page on their watchlists. Deor (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've just posted the question at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), so we'll see what transpires. GregorB (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Seth Andrews

Hello, I noticed you deleted the Seth Andrews article - Would there be anyway to get me a copy in my userspace so I can work on it, if and when, more notable sources become available? Thanks, ツStacey (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Staceydolxx:  Done. Page is at User:Staceydolxx/Seth Andrews. Deor (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ツStacey (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you also add in the talk page to that? I left a couple references in there but now I don't have them. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've copied the sources on your talk page. Deor (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Please revise your "delete" close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Andrews to "no consensus".

  a number of the advocates of keeping the article have advanced rationales not based on recognized elements of WP's inclusion policies – the same could be said of some of the "delete" votes.

  the sources available for writing about the topic fail to provide significant coverage independent of the person himself – the sources I provided do provide significant coverage of the subject.

  Cunard (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cunard: I'm not going to change my closure of the discussion. I'm sure you know how to find WP:DRV. Deor (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I have nominated the AfD for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 15#Seth Andrews. Cunard (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Stylization of the "common name"

In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Revert

Indeed, the article about celestial spheres seems to be more distant comparing to the other articles I have edited. It just happened to be in the category I was editing. I hesitated a little when modifying it, actually. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 02:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've left a message related to this topic on your talk page. Deor (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Russell J. Berkowitz / The Berkowitz Law Firm LLC

Can you please explain the difference between the pages that we created for attorney Russell J. Berkowitz, all of which were taken down, and any of the following, which all remain up and running on Wikipedia? Katten Muchin Rosenman Duane Morris Adelson, Testan, Brundo & Jimenez Rutan & Tucker MillenniumWriter (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@MillenniumWriter: I don't know that there is any great difference, though I see that the sourcing of the Berkowitz article was noticeably thin, with most of the references dealing with (or merely listing) the attorney's membership in various professional organizations rather than providing substantive, in-depth treatment of his life, as required by WP:BIO. I haven't looked at the other articles you've cited—see WP:WAX—but it's quite possible that some or all of them would be deleted if anyone chose to nominate them at AfD. In any event, the decision to delete the Berkowitz article was not mine; I merely closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell J. Berkowitz in accordance with the obvious consensus expressed there and deleted the article accordingly. Deor (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but you didn't simply close the discussion, you also deleted the article. And from what I recall, there were no suggestions to delete this article from any Wikipedia editor, other than them opening the discussion. I saw no comments from any of them. And speaking to your comment about references, one of your editors, deleted our reference and text regarding Berkowitz association with Judge Lavatoro, a supreme court justice and chief justice of the Iowa Supreme court. Would it help our cause to discuss important cases and judgments won by Berkowitz Law firm in the state of Connecticut? MillenniumWriter (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@MillenniumWriter: If you look at the deletion discussion I linked above, you'll see that four editors, in addition to the nominator, recommended deletion, whereas no editor recommended keeping the article. As an administrator, my responsibility is to determine and implement the consensus of the discussion—which was clearly deletion in this case. Closing the discussion and enacting the result are all I do in these cases; if I have an opinion of my own about the fate of an article, I'll contribute to the discussion rather than closing it. The article The Berkowitz Law Firm LLC, on the other hand, was nominated for speedy deletion in accordance with criterion WP:CSD#G11 and was deleted by administrator Y (talk · contribs). I had nothing to do with that (although I'll admit that the article does seem to me to have resembled an advertisement more than an encyclopedia article). Deor (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

120_Greatest_Musical_Masterpieces and 30 Great Piano Classics

You have recently deleted this large article (see discussion) which I had just revised to include more detail justifying its notability and improving sources. I had asked for a re-vote or reconsideration, but it got deleted after only two more comments. Surely that isn't consensus. There was also discussion and possible merge for the companion 30 piano album, but that also got deleted.

The IMDB trivia reference does not mean trivial. It states: "Outside of his (John Williams) movie career, he gained fame as the star of a television commercial for a set of records of classical music, "120 Music Masterpieces." This became the longest running nationally broadcast commercial in U.S. television history, running for almost 14 years, from 1971-1984. The commercial was ultimately phased out as compact discs replaced vinyl phonograph records, still airing more than one year after Williams death on May 5, 1983." Also the YouTube video shows the 2 min commercial so is as good a source as once could expect from something 40y old.

User Snow did comment that the (piano) album "seem to confirm that the advertising campaign may be notable as having resulted in one of the first ever infomercials." and suggested more time be given.

A 5-record LP/CD set marketed on TV for 14 years must surely be notable as its commercial. It is also an educational album with short clips of 150 pieces of classical music masterpieces (probably the biggest set of its era) so the list is encyclopedic content in its own right, and is the best/only way of impartially listing what classical music was considered popular in the 70's. The guidelines being applied really dont apply to 40y old LP sets that are not even performances but more educational material. Where can we go from here? What can I do?  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 14:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@SurreyJohn: The AfD discussion for 120 Greatest Musical Masterpieces was open for nearly a month, from December 27 to January 22, which is a good deal longer than such discussions are scheduled to run (a week); and you were the only person arguing that the article should be kept, with seven users recommending deletion. That constitutes a clear consensus in my view. You can, of course, take the matter to deletion review if you think my closure of the discussion was faulty. Alternatively, I will re-create the article in your user space if you want, as suggested by Metropolitan90 and RoySmith in the discussion, so that you can try to work it into an article that meets WP notability guidelines. Note that in the latter case you should probably still take the matter to deletion review before moving the article back to the article space, to get a consensus that you have added sources that (1) were not in the deleted article and (2) clearly establish the topic's notability. If you move the article back to mainspace without such a consensus, it's very likeky that it will simply be deleted again, either per WP:CSD#G4 or via another AfD.

With regard to 30 Great Piano Classics, I had no involvement in that deletion discussion, and the closer, RoySmith, offered to restore the article as a draft (or, presumably, in your user space) for further work on it to be undertaken; but it appears that no one has taken him up on that offer. Deor (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Deor. I appreciate this has gone an a while and resisted twice. The problem is finding reliable sources for the seventies. With the TV ads running 14 years, there must have been massive sales and many reviews in music and teaching magazines but they're not online, and neither are any sales, chart or TV listings. I'm not sure what the consensus was - Simply a big NO, or require more/better sources (I assume the latter)? Is the album a source in itself? To find sources I will need help and that could take months, especially as there seems to be so much antipathy to classical music in popular culture. Perhaps its best you copy it to my userspace and I'll pick it up later.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 16:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@SurreyJohn: Article is now at User:SurreyJohn/120 Greatest Musical Masterpieces. Deor (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	well done ! Buddhikad 17:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Film_fatales page

I saw that you deleted the newly created page for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Film_fatales Film Fatales due to a copyright infringement, @Deor:. The text was taken from the official organization bio on their home page ([[1]]) by a member of the organization. I have volunteered to rewrite their bio and page, so I wanted to let you know so you don't automatically delete the page again when you see it has been remade.

I was also hoping you might be able to restore it to a version in my userspace so I can work on it and then resubmit when it has been appropriately modified? Please let me know... Thanks. Please feel free to talk to me about the page as I am here to help them make it appropriate for Wikipedia. - LaneBellamy

@LaneBellamy: I'm sorry, but I can't restore a copyright violation, even in your user space; see WP:USERFY#NO #1. You're welcome to write a new page on the topic in your own words if you can establish the organization's notability by including references showing that it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Since you appear to be a new Wikipedia editor, it might be a good idea to use the AFC process so that a more experienced editor can review your submission before it is moved to the article space. Deor (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Deor: Understood! Thanks for the explanation. I'll remake the page.

Re: Page Hebari

Following a recent documentary piece by SBS Australia a believe Hebari's Notability can be determined beyond doubt, the piece can be found here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0g_T15TIo4 With that in mind I would like to restore the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davetayl (talk • contribs) 22:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Davetayl: Well, that video seems to feature someone named Dave, but I have no way of knowing whether that is the same person as Hebari (since the article made no mention of Hebari's birth name or any alternative name other than, apparently, Haru Isamu). In any event, if you think there are new sources that might justify the re-creation of the article, the place to raise the matter is WP:DRV. For myself, I doubt whether that video, by itself, evidences sufficient notability or provides sufficient information to support an article. Deor (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Deor: Hi Deor, if you check the photo you against the photo on the Shibaricon (the US shibari convention) site you'll see it's the same person http://shibaricon.com/bio2015.php?id=155, also his work has been syndicated in other web sites including Kinbaku today http://www.kinbakutoday.com/author/hebari/ and http://www.kinbakuvideos.com/video_tag/hebari/, has also been mentioned as inspiration by Hourai Kasumi in the following interview http://www.ropecast.com/hourai-kasumi-interview/, interviewed by the Tantric lounge http://www.jacquelinehellyer.com/the-tantric-lounge-radio-show/episode-3-10-all-tied-up-in-the-japanese-art-of-bondage and Something you said http://somethingyousaid.com/2014/05/07/interview-hebari-from-sydney-rope-dojo/, also mentioned here http://kinbakuluxuria.com/dir/report-from-bound-and-lfajrb/, http://rope-topia.com/2012/10/1036/, http://gestalta.co.uk/blog/australia-the-sydney-rope-festival-part-2/, http://nawapedia.com/index.php?title=Bingo_Shigonawa and here http://smpedia.com/index.php?title=Hebari.

@Davetayl: As I said above, I think your best recourse is to start a deletion review at WP:DRV, citing the sources that you think justify the re-creation of the article. That's the usual process when one wants to present new evidence that may override the consensus of a previous Articles for deletion discussion. I can't restore the article unilaterally. Deor (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

One last question about Newport Creek

Do you suppose that this North Branch Newport Creek is also just Newport Creek upstream of South Branch Newport Creek, or is it actually the official Northbranch Newport Creek (again, this is for an article). --Jakob (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jakec: Now I'm really confused. It looks as though there may have formerly been a North Branch that was tributary to Newport Creek, with its mouth at the point specified on the GNIS page, but damned if I know whether there is still one. The ACME version of the USGS topo map is rather hard to interpret (too much extraneous clutter in the area), but both it and the Google Map appear to show a stream that begins around 41.1831°N 76.0748°W / 41.1831; -76.0748, then peters out somewhere around 41.1899°N 76.0491°W / 41.1899; -76.0491 without actually connecting with Newport Creek. The source coordinates certainly correspond to those on the GNIS page, but I suspect that the mining activity in the area—piles of tailings, etc.—have made the stream (if it in fact still exists) a feature of a tiny endorheic system. All this is pure conjecture, of course; I have nothing to go on but the maps, and they don't even give the supposed stream a name. I certainly wouldn't want to base an article on just the old book sources and the GNIS page, without finding some way to verify the current status of the "branch". Deor (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The National Map also shows a stream named "Northbranch Newport Creek", which does appear to disappear before reaching Newport Creek, but if you check the National Hydrography Dataset box, the stream continues all the way to Newport Creek, but it's colored black on the map instead of blue like streams typically are. I think that means that it flows underground or loses its flow or something like that. Definitely it still exists (though it's probably miniscule and/or mostly underground). The only question is whether the old book sources are talking about it. (The Operation Scarlift report definitely isn't; this map calls the main stem "North Branch Newport Creek" and doesn't label the Northbranch Newport Creek). --Jakob (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said, Jakob, I really know nothing about any of this. If, however, you go to page 39 of the Water Resources Inventory Report you linked in the first post of this section, it mentions "the Susquehanna Coal Company's No. 6 Colliery" and "the Stearns Shaft" as being near the North Branch. If these correspond to the "No. 6 Shaft" (though it's apparently no longer in the Susquehanna's "territory") and the "Stearns Shaft" shown on the Scarlift map, it would certainly appear that what that report is calling the North Branch is the main Newport Creek (above the confluence with the South Branch) rather than the USGS's "Northbranch". That interpretation is further reinforced by the sentence "The Middle Branch is clear from its source to the junction with the North Branch" later on p. 39. How the "Northbranch" works into all this is beyond me; it's possible that, as you intimated in your refdesk post, the names have at some time been switched around or that Pennsylvania and the USGS simply use different nomenclature for these streams. Deor (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, shortly after I last commented here, I did some more poking around in the sources, and it really does seem that none of them are discussing "Northbranch". Since there's literally nothing on it beyond what I've already written, I'll go ahead and U1 it. Thanks for your help anyway. --Jakob (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Pakistani railway stations

	The Original Barnstar
	Many thanks for your fantastic work on geocoding railway stations in Pakistan! The Anome (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I've made a page User:The Anome/Pakistani railway station near-matches, a list of near-matches between names of region:PK railway stations in the NGA GNS database and Wikipedia articles about railway stations in Pakistan. While my matching code can't be 100% certain about these matches, my guess, based on visual inspection, is that most, and possibly all, of them are likely to be matches. I hope this helps. -- The Anome (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

creation–evolution controversy

An article you have edited List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy has been nominated for deletion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_participants_in_the_creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy FYI --Kaptinavenger (talk) 07:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The Manitou School

I disagree with your redirect of The Manitou School to Plumbush. Plumbush is a notable historic house; The Manitou School just happens to be the current tenant. If the school is not notable (and I won't argue that point) than the outcome should be delete, or redirect to Putnam County#Education. Redirecting to the article about the house seems to inappropriately tie the school to its more notable address. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: Well, the Plumbush article is the only article that mentions the school, so it seemed a logical target for the redirect. It's widely agreed that elementary schools—especially one that has just opened—are generally not notable; I suppose I could have taken the article to AfD, but since there's an article that already talks about it (and the current uses of historical buildings are normally mentioned in the articles about them), why not the redirect? A sentence about this single private elementary school certainly wouldn't fit very well into Putnam County, New York#Education. Deor (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Divided Sovereignty

To delete an entry for Divided Sovereignty is unfortunate. Divided Sovereignty is the reason the Constitution Preamble mandates the Federal government "provide" for the defense of liberty and restricts it to only "promote" welfare.

Thomas Jefferson made the point clearly in 1816:

No, my friend, the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to.

Let the national government be entrusted with the defence of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best.

What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and power into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate.

The Federal government sovereignty over infrastructure is limited to no more than "post Roads" as voted 8 to 3 into the Constitution on Sept 14, 1787.

Federal violation of the "post Road" restriction, taxing to build commercial monopolies in power and transportation created the pollution that is causing Climate Change, oil-wars, resource depletion, $18 trillion in debt.

And you want to delete the Framers statements about Divided Sovereignty? You must be very important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillJamesMN (talk • contribs) 04:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not very important, but Wikipedia is not the place for a bunch of quotations tenuously glued together with your personal interpretation. That, at least seems to have been the opinion of most of the participants in the deletion discussion. Deor (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Derek Bentley

Thank you so much for semi-ing that article. It does seem to be a bit of a target at the moment (dunno why, I should probably check the KS3 curriculum!) and it will be lovely to have a break. I should not, I know, get overinvolved with particular articles but this was a particularly sad and nasty little case and I do, despite myself, feel a bit distressed when it gets messed around with for !laughs. Right, enough weebling, I will shut up now - but thanks again, I really appreciate the help. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: No problem. I can't imagine that IP editors will have much new information to add on a case so old, anyway. If the vandalism starts up again after the protection expires, just drop me a note. Deor (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - that's very kind of you. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

21 (number)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 07:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There have been only two bad attempted edits during the month of PC, but I've gone ahead and extended it another month. Perhaps the "9 + 10 = 21" meme (whatever the hell that is) will have died down by that time. Deor (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Duff coordinates

I've had a go at removing at least some of those coordinates: I've removed all the cases I can find of bot-added 41.1284 N 42.8329 E coordinates now, and added {{coord missing}} tags again. Please see Special:Contributions/The_Anomebot2. I only removed those coordinates that exactly string-matched 41.1284 N and 42.8329 E: please let me know if there are others, and I can take them out, too. Unfortunately, I can't use the bot to help at wikidata, or trwiki, because I don't have bot rights there: but at least I hope that gives you a list of some or all of the affected articles. -- The Anome (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: I've also fixed about twenty articles by hand on both trwiki and wikidata. I'm not sure this has got everything, but I hope it helps. -- The Anome (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

U.S. cities and their maps

What's the rationale behind using state locator maps versus country locator maps for cities who already have a county-state map made for them, as was the case with Utica, New York? I'd like to know for future reference. Buffaboy ^talk 12:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Buffaboy: Well, in general it's the state pushpin maps that are used in most articles on U.S. settlements. I see your point, though. (I was mainly just trying to avoid the overlapping coordinates in the title position by deleting the redundant {{coord}} template.) If you compare the infoboxes in similar articles, such as Albany, New York, many of them just use the dedicated county-state map with no automatic pushpin map at all. You may want to do that for Utica. You can also restore the national pushpin map if you want to; though I think its usefulness is limited. Deor (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Deor: That makes sense, thanks. Buffaboy ^talk 15:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Peabody, Mass.

The population for Peabody, Ma was 52,044. I apologize for not sourcing but if you look up the population it will say that number for 2013.

-Rocker1096

@Rocker1096: I've added a source, though not a terribly good one, for the 2013 estimate. Frankly, I'm not sure why people are so eager to add these (not particulary signficant) inter-census estimates to articles. If population figures are updated only every ten years, on the basis of the official census, what's the big problem? Deor (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no problem I just wanted to put the most recent recorded population.

-Rocker1096 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocker1096 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Marianne Moore

Deor: I will be making some additions and updates to the Marianne Moore page, and would appreciate any help you can give me so that I can be sure to stay within Wikipedia policy. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanniew (talk • contribs) 17:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Zanniew: That's fine; I'm glad to see that you're taking an interest in the article. For the moment, I'd advise that you watch your referencing. When you added information here, for instance, you used just a URL as the ref; better practice would be use a citation template (in that case, {{cite journal}} or {{cite web}}, depending on whether you've seen the actual article or only the online abstract), filling out as many of the fields as are applicable. Doing so makes it easier for the reader to understand the references. The article is on my watchlist, so I'll try to keep abreast of your efforts. If you want any specific help, just ask here. Deor (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Deor: Thank you for the advice, Deor! I wil fix up that reference. Zanniew (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Zanniew

Semicolons

Hi, re this edit: at college, we were taught that when writing a list as a sentence, a colon is placed after the introductory phrase ("... the communities of") with the individual items separated with semicolons. My use of semicolons instead of commas also means that the comma preceding the terminal phrase ("all being in Carmarthenshire") is not mistaken for another list separator. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: See MOS:COLON and the following section on semicolons. A colon isn't used between a preposition and its object(s) in a normal prose sentence; one wouldn't write "the philosophies of: Hume, Kant, and Schopenhauer". Semicolons are usually used to separate items in a series only if the items themselves contain commas, as in "the towns of Usk, Monmouthshire; Whitland, Carmarthenshire; and Goodwick, Pembrokeshire". At least that's how things work in the (admittedly American) style guides with which I'm familiar. I don't really think there's much danger of reading the last comma as signaling a continuation of the series, since the preceding and clearly signals that "Cilycwm" is the last item in the series. Deor (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

But MOS:COLON says "A colon (:) informs the reader that what comes after it ... is a list of items that has just been introduced." - and you removed that colon too. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Later on, however, it says "In most cases a colon works best with a complete grammatical sentence before it." Deor (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

21 (number)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done for another month. Deor (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones

I've not seen expansion yet. --George Ho (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: I'm not sure what happened (I may have responded at RfPP but simply neglected to carry through on extending the protection), but it appears that Krakatoa Katie has taken care of it. Deor (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

My Page

Can you leave it? Thanks 115.124.7.2 (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No. You're obviously writing about friends or identifiable people (presumably at Beaconhills College), and Wikipedia is not a host for that sort of thing, even in user space. If you're not interested in contributing to an encyclopedia, this is the wrong place for you. Deor (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Is there any way that I could get a copy of the deleted text to put it on a more appropriate site?115.124.7.2 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I won't repost it on Wikipedia; and since people without accounts can't enable e-mail, I can't e-mail it to you. Also, I can't imagine where such material would be appropriate. Deor (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@115.124.7.2: you should be able to extract the text from the article's history and diffs. Mjroots (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hothfield railway station

Thanks for the fix, but can we have the coords in dms please? Mjroots (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mjroots: As near as I can tell, that particular infobox doesn't allow for that; see the documentation at Template:Infobox UK disused station. A reader can, however, see the coordinates in d/m/s just by clicking on the coordinates and looking at the top of the Geohack page. Deor (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Geology museums in Denmark

Hi Deor, please see my comment at Category talk:Geology museums in Denmark about the possibility of upmerging the category. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Yes, I saw your comment on the talk page. It was because I could find no evidence of any other specifically geological museum in Denmark that I ventured to tag the category for deletion. I see, however, that we have an article on the GeoCenter Møns Klint, which apparently considers itself one, so I've added that to the category as well. Since there aren't that many articles in Category:Natural history museums in Denmark to begin with, there may be some sense in not splitting things too fine, but I'm satisfied with the category's existence if you are. I was mainly concerned with fixing the problem of the existence of two articles on the same museum. Deor (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

That's good then. I fixed the category's "parentage". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Forgetting to ping

Hey Deor. Noting your most recent edit to the Teahouse, unfortunately, when I've tried that it doesn't work. I thought for a while if I removed my signature, saved, then pinged at the same time I added it back in a separate edit that would work, but nope. I don't come here armed with a solution. Sorry. I just thought you'd want to know, and not be fooled into thinking you'd pinged somebody when they got nothing (I thought I was effectively fixing my forgotten pings for months until someone's post alerted me).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Good to know. I was under the same misapprehension. I wonder if there is a way to effectively add a ping to an already-posted message. Deor (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This is just a thought but since the notification always links to the section name, it seems to me if you were to create a new section on the same page, just below the prior one with the exact same title, then post there something like {{ping|name}} fixing ping--~~~~, save and then immediately edit the page and remove the same-titled section, I would think the ping the person would get, which links to the name of the section header, would then function exactly as if you had pinged them the correct way the first time, with the notification link working properly. I'm going to try that at my talk page, pinging you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Rucker Elementary School

Hi. You deleted this page recently, but I believe this school is historically significant. It was opened in 1894, which is very, very old in California timescales, and was among the first schools in the area. I understand that the page is .. weak at this point. However, I went through the school district's archives on Friday and gathered some good stuff to add, and just purchased a Gilroy history book with some more info. I've also discussed with one of the teachers about having the 4th grade (which is focused on California history) students do research into the site's history to develop more relevant information. Does that make it worth saving? Thanks. James E. Pace 21:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jepace: I didn't delete the article; I merely changed it to a redirect (all the previous versions are in the article's history). If you think that there's a viable article there, you're free to undo my edit; but you should be aware that articles about elementary schools tend not to survive on Wikipedia unless the school buildings happen to be on the National Register of Historic Places or the like. Note also that a school district's archives are not, in general, an acceptable source, since as WP:SOURCE says, "Unpublished materials are not considered reliable." If you resurrect the article, I or some other editor may take it to Articles for deletion. I'm not trying to dissuade you, exactly, just trying to point out that creating an article that satisfies our notability requirements may be quite difficult in this case. Deor (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Got it. I'll hit the library... James E. Pace 21:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jepace (talk • contribs)

Can you tell other tags or any other deatails which are needed in Wikipedia for creating and editing pages as I am new here? 1.Suppose if somebody writes wrong details on any page and in talk page he didn't reply then what to do? 2.Can you tell me what to write in place of "xxx"?? 3.What is the meaning of this? "db-g7", "db-a10" likes this...what does g7 a10 means and where to use it?

Nepal

Hey, where are you from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxboy (talk • contribs) 14:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Noxboy: I live in Chicago. Does that make a difference? Deor (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you send me your facebook account or send a friend request. I want to chat you.. @Deor:

Sorry, I don't have an account on Facebook (or any other social media), and I prefer not to become too involved personally with other Wikipedia editors. If you have a specific comment or question, you can always post it here on my talk page. Deor (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you Nepali?? @Deor:

No, I'm not. Deor (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Deor: Can you tell me how to delete articles in Wikipedia?? There is two same pages I mistakely created. So I wanna delete 1 article.

@Noxboy: If you created a page mistakenly and no one except you has made a significant edit to it, you can insert the tag {{db-g7}} at the top of the page, and an administrator will come along to delete it. Deor (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Deor Thanks. Can you tell me to insert refereo in pages?? I know little but please can you say some reference tag and other useful tag?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxboy (talk • contribs) 13:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Noxboy: Basic information about referencing can be found at Help:Referencing for beginners. Some useful reference templates are listed in the chart at Wikipedia:Citation templates. If you have questions about a specific article, you can ask here. Deor (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Deor: How to bann users who provide wrong details in articles?? And how to know coordinates of any place?? In Ilam, Nepal, you have provided coordinates although you are not from Nepal.so how to find coordinates??

@Deor: And how to delete such page other created which has no references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxboy (talk • contribs) 02:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Noxboy: I'm uncertain what exactly you mean by "users who provide wrong details in articles". If you disagree with someone's edits, the usual first step is to discuss the matter with the editor, either on the article's talk page or on their own talk page. If it is obvious that a user is intentionally inserting incorrect information (without sources) in articles, you can warn the user by posting one of these templates on his or her talk page. (You normally start with a level-one template and increase the level for each subsequent instance of vandalism.) If a user persists after receiving a final warning, you can list the user at WP:AIV, and an administrator may block the user, either for a specific period of time or permanently.

There are several ways to find coordinates. One easy way is to go to Google Maps and search for a place's name; if the name is in the database, you'll be taken to the location, and you can click on the map to place a marker on a particular spot and read the coordinates of the spot in the box at top left (these are given to six decimal places, so they may need to be shortened). If you already know where a place is, you might prefer to use GeoLocator, as that tool will give you already-filled-in {{coord}} templates that you can copy and paste into Wikipedia articles. More information can be found at WP:GEO.

Wikipedia has three procedures for deleting articles. In certain clearly defined situations, they can be tagged for speedy deletion (the criteria and templates can be found at that link). There are also WP:PROD and WP:AFD, which you can find out about by reading those pages. In any case, only an administrator can actually carry out the deletion.

(By the way, you don't need to {{ping}} a person when you post on his or her talk page; users are automatically notified of posts on their talk pages.) Deor (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. What to to if people provide wrong information on any Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxboy (talk • contribs) 16:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Noxboy: If the information doesn't have a source, you can remove it (with an explanation in the edit summary) or change it—though if you change it, you should include a reference supporting your version of the information. If you remove it and someone adds it again, don't get into a remove/replace "war" with the other editor. Instead, discuss the matter on the article's talk page. (See WP:BRD.) If no one can cite a source that supports any version of the information, the information doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. (Note: I am going to be on Wikipedia only sporadically for the next week or so. If you have any further questions during that time, you may want to ask them at the Teahouse, which is a place where new editors can get their questions answered.) Deor (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell other tags or any other deatails which are needed in Wikipedia for creating and editing pages as I am new here? 1.Suppose if somebody writes wrong details on any page and in talk page he didn't reply then what to do? 2.Can you tell me what to write in place of "xxx"?? "ref name="xxx"Cite web |url=xxx| title=xxx |publisher=xxx |date=xxx | accessdate=xxx 3.What is the meaning of this? "db-g7", "db-a10" likes this...what does g7 a10 means and where to use it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxboy (talk • contribs) 12:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC) @Deor:

@Noxboy: (1) Sometimes you have to wait several days for a talk-page response. You can try contacting the editor on his or her own talk page.

(2) The fields in citation templates are pretty self-explanatory. As far as the "ref name" field goes, you can name a ref anything you want, though it helps if the name is related to the title or topic of the work referenced. The Web address of the source (if any) goes in the "url" field; the title of the source, in the "title" field; the name of the source's publisher, in the "publisher" field; the date when the source was published, in the "date" field; the date when you viewed an online source, in the "accessdate" field; and so forth. Just leave out any fields that don't apply or that you can't find the information for. If you want to find out this sort of information for any template, type "Template:Cite web" (or the name of any other template you're interested in after the colon), and the documentation on the template page should explain what goes in the fields.

(3) "Db" stands for "delete because" and is used in speedy-deletion tags. The various reasons for speedy deletion (G7, A10, etc.) are explained at WP:CSD. Deor (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

References

JusticeNet Canada

Hi Deor,

I see that you recently deleted the page of JusticeNet Canada due to copyright violations.

I work for JusticeNet and was trying to set up a Wikipedia page to reflect what our company does.

Please advise on how I can get past the copyright concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JusticeNetCanada (talk • contribs) 14:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, JusticeNetCanada. That draft was just a paste of material on the organization's Web site, which bears a clear copyright notice, so it can't, I'm afraid, be hosted anywhere on Wikipedia. Even if the organization were to release the material under a compatible license, it still wouldn't be suitable as an article here; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that read nothing like an encyclopedia entry (think of the entries in the Encyclopædia Britannica or The World Book). Our requirements are based on the interrelated policies of notability and reliable sources: For a topic to be included, it must have been substantively discussed in reliable, independent sources (books, magazines, newspaper articles, and so forth), and the article must be built principally on the information in those sources—though the organization's own site can be used for minor, uncontroversial information such as the date of founding, etc. What you'll have to do is find such sources and then write a neutral, informational article in your own words, based on what the sources say, and citing the information to the sources from which you obtained it. If there are no such independent sources, there can't be an article.

As a purely procedural matter, your user name violates our user-name policy by being an organization's name and possibly implying shared use. You can go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple to request that the name be changed to something more personal to yourself; or, since your only edits have been the creation of the draft and the post on my talk page, you can simply abandon your account and create a new one with an acceptable name. Also, since you are connected with the organization you propose to write about, I recommend that you carefully read the page Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Sorry to drop so much potentially discouraging information on you at the beginning of your editorship, but I hope that your future with Wikipedia may be more smooth. The links in the welcome message on your talk page, along with Wikipedia:Your first article, may be of help, and you can certainly ask here if you have any other questions. Deor (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi. Thanks. Here is my question. Let's say that one editor (Editor "A") makes a post, on a Wikipedia article Talk Page (or anywhere, for that matter). Can another editor (Editor "B") go in and change/edit/modify the post of Editor "A"? That's my general question. And, in specific, can Editor "B" go in and "strike out" a comment (like this) from Editor "A"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: Well, that's something that's not usually done, but there are some cases in which it's permitted. The guidelines are at WP:TPO. If you want my opinion on a particular case, you'll have to be more specific. Deor (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as a specific case, this is the page: Talk:Hillary Clinton email system#Rename this? (June 2015). The edit made here: Talk:Hillary Clinton email system: Difference between revisions. (Apparently, I don't know how to link it here.) It was the edit made today (June 27, 2015) at 1:38 PM by User:Chasewc91. I gave a "support" vote, and he struck it out (with an accusatory edit summary, to boot). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: You reverted the striking out (with a less-than-ideal edit summary), and no one has reverted that, so I'd just let the matter drop. I've seen quite a few "support as nominator" !votes in discussions (not counting WP:FPC discussions, where they're an accepted feature), and I've seen people object to them as redundant; but usually they're tolerated—even in AfDs, where WP:AFDFORMAT advises that "nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line"—as closers of the discussions can usually recognize that the nom and the support count as only one person's opinion.

With particular regard to move requests, WP:RM says

After the nomination has been made, nominators may nevertheless add a separate bullet point to support their nomination, but should add "as nominator" (for example,  * '''Rename, as nominator''': ...). Most nominators, however, simply allow the nomination itself to indicate what their opinion is.

so you were technically sort of justified; but since you now know that such "supports" may attract objection, it might be a good idea to avoid them in the future and just say all you have to say in the nom itself.

(P.S.: The way to link to a specific diff is to go to the page's history, click on "prev" for the edit in question, and then copy the URL from your browser's address bar and link to it as you would an external link, thus: diff.) Deor (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Yes, I do consider this matter "dropped" and I have moved on. I was trying to get some clarification for the future. Also, I think I now know how to link to the "diff". I have to copy/paste the website address in full. I was only doing a copy/paste of the "title" of the Wikipedia page (in this case, "Talk:Hillary Clinton email system: Difference between revisions"). Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: It would have been preferable if you came to my talk page to discuss the matter with me before going to an administrator. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)