User talk:Ian13/Archive11

Deletion of G's Dairy Delights

I would like to contest the deletion of the entry entitled, "G's Dairy Delights." The reason this article was selected for speedy deletion is not entirely justified and the notability of G's Dairy Delights is becoming better known throughout the small community of Rexburg. Just because this business is opened up in a smaller community that doesn't see as much media coverage as most larger cities, that doesn't mean it doesn't have notability within it's own sphere of influence. Rexburg, Idaho has been coined "America's Family Community." There is far less crime per capita and much more love displayed in this little town than in most large cities I know. Families are the central unit of this society. G's Dairy Delights represents the spirit of Rexburg, the desire of a family to work together, learn and grow together as they build up a company that tries to put family first. This location has also been growing in popularity with the students of nearby Brigham Young University - Idaho, and is quickly becoming a major location of interest for those who travel here. I am not affiliated with G's Dairy Delights in any way and don't personally know the owners, but I respect and admire the spirit they have shown forth in emphasizing family values. This article was also in know way meant as blatant advertising, but focused more on the history of the company and wonderful family who built up a Southeastern Idaho icon. notability is relative, but here G's is as notable as anything ever gets in a small, close-knit community. There was nothing vulgar or wrong about this article and it did not bring down the integrity of Wikipedia in any way whatsoever. Since this article was tagged for "speedy deletion" and then was deleted before I had the chance to even see that it had been tagged due to prior school-related responsibilities, I was not able to contest it in time, but I know there was no moral or ethical reason why this entry should have been struck down. Such speedy and immediate deletion of something that represents the spirit of an entire community is a slap in the face to the good, honest people struggling to make a living and keep the family important in their lives. I, as the creator, should have at least been given time to contest such a removal or time to edit or add anything I could to make it more acceptable by Wikipedia's standards. Please consider replacing the article and allowing specific time for editing or arguments against the purposed reasons for deletion so as to make this article more "notable" in the eyes of the internet-surfing public at large.

Cheddurmonkee (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a second look at the article, but I still believe the deletion was justified. Let me just explain: with regards to companies, Wikipedia has some strong guidance on what is notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia (see WP:CORP) - and this basically says it must be covered by good secondary sources. A quick look at google reveals 8 hits (2 mentions on blogs, and a few business address listings). Additionally, I see little way of verifying the material listed (original research isn't usually acceptable). I respect it may be known in the local region, but notability isn't about importance, just if it should be noted in the encyclopedia. Please feel free to ask me for more clarification, or you can make a posting at Deletion_review if you wish. Ian¹³/t 16:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of article on Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela

I am really surprised that a meaningful and informative article about a voluntary consumer organisation, which has been serving the community for the last 23 years or so should be considered as blatant advertisement. This organisation which was founded on 8th Sept. 1985 still continues to serve the community and supports them "Free of Cost", speaks volumes.

Instead of considering these facts and finding out from its website www.advantageconsumer.com, the role it has been playing in educating and upholding the consumer rights in a manner befitting even bigger organisations, labeling it as advertisement is quite unfortunate. You may be surprised that its annual budget, even today is only about Rs. 2,00,000/- (less than $ 5,000/-).

I thought, in my own selfish interest, in my capacity as the Founder Secretary and presently its Chief Mentor, I wanted other people to know about this site. May be, I was wrong.

Anyhow, thank you very much.

B.Vaidyanathan Chief Mentor Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela 10/18, 40th Street Nanganallur Chennai-600061. India Phone: +91 44 22317142 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.195.162 (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

[Block formatting removed to keep it all on the page.]

The article gave no references, and does may meet the guidelines at WP:CORP (used to establish whether a company or organisation is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia) due to it's limited inclusion in secondary sources. The deletion itself is because it would have required a fundamental rewrite to make it suitable, and if you believe (or any one else for that matter) that it does meet the above guidelines, then there is nothing to stop its recreation. Please also read WP:COI and WP:OR, as given you are associated with the subject, it is probably best to let someone else write the article. If you would like the deletion reviewed, please see WP:DR. Thanks. Ian¹³/t 15:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

After searching the web, I have given some references, which relate to established newspapers, such as "The Hindu", of Chennai, "The Telegraph", of Kolkata, a reknowned voluntary consumer organisation's (Common Cause, New Delhi)website, etc. With this I hope the requirement of references has been fulfilled.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2003/03/16/stories/2003031600271300.htm http://www.hinduonnet.com/2007/09/04/stories/2007090461251400.htm http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080616/jsp/jharkhand/story_9417793.jsp http://www.commoncauseindia.org/nl/Jan-March-2008/5.htm http://www.consumer.tn.gov.in/implinks.htm http://www.corecentre.org/ps2 http://www.google.com/Top/Regional/Asia/India/Orissa/Localities/Rourkela http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/India/States_and_Union_Territories/Orissa/ http://www.advantageconsumer.com

There can be many such web pages available, when we search for "Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela".

Hope, the contributed article will be undeleted, in the larger consumer interests.(Firstindyan (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

I advise you to go to WP:DR for a deletion review, or you could recreate the page being sure to cite sources and establish notability (the speedy tag won't be reinstated by default, but as with any article, a AfD may be called for, or will be speeded if another admin believes it is still appropriate). Also, please do not add " " (multiple spaces) before any paragraph as it breaks standard formatting. You can use ":" for an indent. Ian¹³/t 17:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That might be WP:DRV ! --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well spotted. Thanks. Ian¹³/t 16:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I am priobably like your Alice in Wonderland. Not able to make out much about the editing. Please excuse me. I had gone to WP:DRV page and given my submissions on 19th July. I sincerely trying to follow each and every instruction being made available on the site. I am not sure whether I will succeed in my mission. Please help and try to include the article in the wiki. Thanks! (07:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstindyan (talk • contribs)

Template deletions

Hey there. I noticed deletions like this, which confused me a bit. You meant CSD#T3 there, no? I3 is for images.... --MZMcBride (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I did yes, sorry. I was doing them as T3 manually using TW (which I am still trying to get used to). I tried out a batch delete, making doubly sure I was deleting the right things (which fortunately I was), however, I mistyped the reason. This mistake was obviously markedly more noticeable as I had just managed to add dozens of incorrect logs. But well done for noticing. Ian¹³/t 18:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Commando Krav Maga article

The first time that the Commando Krav Maga section was deleted, I asked the Wikipedia Administrator what i needed to do in order for the page to be added back. He stated that I needed to include references and reliable sources which I did. He also stated that I needed to remove any advert content. I complied by removing the Commando Krav Maga logo and all advert type comments within the article. I limited the article only to factual information. The administrator stated that after I made the revisions, to re-post the article. When I followed his instructions, the article was deleted again.

I would appreciate any advice as to how I can reinstate the article on Commando Krav Maga. This reality based self defense system is now being taught in over 26 countries by over 280 certified instructors with thousand of practitioners. I believe that this system is relevant to the martial arts community as many people are looking for relevant information on Commando Krav Maga.

Combatsurvival (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the logs, the page was deleted by community consensus at AfD (show). Because of this if you wish to recreate the page, you should ask for another discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. You may wish to provide your new article content over there to support your case, or alternatively you could just add a section to Krav Maga. Ian¹³/t 21:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Smartcard2.png

I reverted your reversion of my work. I'm not using the WP logo/globe, I'm merely using a detail of it. The Omega and the W are vaguely visible, but there's no globe at all. Seeing that as a possible WP copyvio problem is really stretching it, IMHO. Kind regards,  Channel ®   01:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned by your comment "(That doesn't make sense. Everything on WP/WM is GFDL including the logo. Reverting.)" on the photo page. Image:Wiki.png clearly states "copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation" and gives no indication of GFDL status. However, I understand that using a detail may or may not be a copyvio problem, I was just cautious about it as it does certainly look like an obvious derivative work of it to me. Cheers. Ian¹³/t 10:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If I could change that comment I would. I was convinced I was right until I found out that everything on WP is indeed GDFL except the WP logo. Duh. Completely my fault. Unfortunately there's nothing I can do about the comment now. I jumped to conclusions, sorry. As fas as derivative work goes, I'm thinking about changing the letters. The puzzle-piece shape itself is not copyrighted and if I put different characters in there, ones that aren't in the WP logo, then it'll look WP-ish without actually being it. More like a parody or spoof. However, as said, I don't believe the current version poses a problem. It's too far removed from the puzzle-globe logo. Doesn't even look like a globe anymore. Kind regards,  Channel ®   22:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The spoof would fully cover it in my opinion, but it's not really very objectionable at present. Cheers. Ian¹³/t 11:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review notice

Regarding this notice you put on my talk page... can you tell me where I was involved? I checked the deletion log, the AfD discussion, the article history... I can't find anything, and I don't recall anything. Tan ǀ 39 21:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You preformed the initial speedy deletion at the secondary location of Commando krav maga. Ian¹³/t 09:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of The 16' Club

Please could you let me know why you proceeded straight to deletion without responding to my query? My first attempt was rightly deleted, but this time I was careful to provide references from the very point of page creation rather than naively hoping to update with references after posting the framework. On the talk page from the first deletion, it was suggested that having references both online and off (in the form of published books) would spare me such a deletion. Clearly I'm missing something pretty fundamental here, and being new to the code-heavy wikipedia system is doing me no favours. Could I contact you by email? I imagine it would be far simpler. XVI Chancer (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I did indeed ignore the courtesy of answering your questions, so sorry. In response, references should (if you can) be added using the system outlined here: Wikipedia:REF#Footnote_system. Images should be licensed under a free licence (you must hold the copyright to release the file under a suitable licence, and this is irrevocable) and uploaded at commons (the name you give it at commons will also work here, so if you upload as X.png, then add to an article [[Image:X.png]]. You could also upload on Wikipedia under a fair-use licence claim if you don't hold the copyright, but read up on that here first.

Now that that is addressed, I deleted the article under CSD A7, basically because the article didn't say why the subject is important. In short: Why as a reader, would I want to learn about this topic? Why is it important? Now, as the page isn't salted or deleted by a discussion, you can go ahead and recreate, but the first thing to address is why is it important (and reference this). You will need to establish notability later as well (see WP:N) or it may still be subject to deletion. (As a note, quoting a big bulk of text, such as the 'rules', is a bad idea due to copyright.) I hope this helps. Ian¹³/t 21:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Grant Street (Pittsburgh) and Grant Street

If the deleted article was not substantially the same as the old one deleted through AFD, the deletion was in error, especially because Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 5 was closed as "Encourage recreation". I'm reverting your removal of backlinks; can you please undelete the article unless it was the same as the old one? Thank you. --NE2 21:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The new article (at 'Grant Street (Pittsburgh)' rather than the original 'Grant Street' location) seemed to contain even less context than the original with no sources, and any claim to notability seems stronger in the deleted article if anything. You are welcome to go ahead and create a new page, with references and claims to notability. It still seems to just say that it is a street and only gives normal (uncited) properties inherent to any street (length, name and termini) and a (significantly shorter) list of buildings. Ian¹³/t 21:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; please try to be more careful with delinking. --NE2 21:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea, sorry. Ian¹³/t 17:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Lynch1000s (talk · contribs)

Hi. See. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Ian¹³/t 21:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MOO-output.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MOO-output.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? OsamaK 16:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This should probably be deleted. There's bound to be freely licensed telnet clients out there. Ian¹³/t 17:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Undid Cathy MacDonald deletion

As I understand it, CSD:A1 is for "Cathy MacDonald is on the radio", not "Cathy MacDonald is a Scottish broadcaster who is known for hosting many Scots Gaelic programs and currently hosts...", so I undid it and added a couple of references.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Ian¹³/t 16:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Abraham Falcon worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TestEditBot (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear... The joys of a rogue Bold text. Ian¹³/t 20:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hangon! (Bongloard)

Thanks for the message - I've replied on my talk page. Booglamay (talk) - 19:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you know which user created the page? I didn't add the speedy tag so I've got no log of their user talk page. Cheers. Booglamay (talk) - 19:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Governor Walker With Audrey E Smith.jpg

As you deleted the above image, I was wondering if you could take a look at Image:Governor Walker With Security Detail And Audrey E Smith.jpg and Image:Gov Walker pic.jpg. I wouldn't want to delete them myself, as I am somewhat involved, having debated this with the uploader for a while. J Milburn (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Both CSD I3'ed. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 18:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Uploaded Images & Fair Use Rationale

Hi Ian13 - I've added the rationale as you requested - do I need to anything else to ensure that they are not deleted?

Thanks Paul Bevan (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Continued on users talk page. Ian¹³/t 18:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Anglophilia

Hi, I see you responded to the issue of J. Hammers on Anglophilia. It seems that some other people are unwilling to use talk page to find a solution:

User:Francis Tyers showed a list of problems with the section which he removed and User:Jagdfeld got personal on him "Have a shave. Get a haircut. Have a wash." instead of addressing the issues which Francis brought.

User:Zocky also presented his view on the talk page, but he was utterly ignored.

I wrote today again something on the talk page, but I was also ignored, User:Londo06 reverting with the summary "rv to agreed version", although it's clear there's no agreement on anything on the talk page.

As an uninvolved admin, I think you could help us out to find a solution for this issue. bogdan (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not as simple as I first thought. Will try and lend a hand. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 18:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it has been locked for a week before (20-28 July) and it didn't make anyone from the "other side" (those who want to include the section) to even bother editing the talk page during that week. It's really hard to debate the inclusion or removal of that section when they don't bring any arguments. Me, Francis and Zocky brought arguments and their only reply was that Francis needs a haircut and that he "should be should be blocked" for "Vandalism".

Instead of discussing the issue, Jagdfeld began attacking Francis saying stuff like "When you are dead, or get older, you might feel embarrassed at being a time-waster." or "I am telling you to grow up." bogdan (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I plan to see how it pans out after the protection goes, and then start warning/blocking for WP:3RR (if it ends up being whoever has the most on his side as a means of determining consensus, I may just protect again). It seems everyone manages to keep to 3RR, but not everyone bothers to discuss. If it becomes obvious through consensus on the talk page (of those who bother...) which version is right, I am happy to edit the page to reflect that whilst protected. Ian¹³/t 19:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sean Geddes Deleted?

Why was the Sean Geddes page I created deleted, I do not understand why?

{WFCPenniall (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)}

Sorry for the delayed response. It was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 because it did not indicate why the subject might be notable. Ian¹³/t 20:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hi, Ian! I noticed that you deleted Image:Callcreditlogonew 300dpi.png instead of Image:Callcreditlogonew 300dpi.jpg - would you consider restoring the former and deleting the latter? Per WP:IUP, logos should be in PNG format. Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 15:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Actually, my deletion was correct I believe. Image:Callcreditlogo 300dpi.png is the one in use on the article. I've deleted Image:Callcreditlogonew 300dpi.jpg now too thanks (why there were 6 versions of the same logo I'll never know). Ian¹³/t 15:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoops - yeah, you're right, thanks! I originally ran across the dupes using this tool - it picked up the duplicate JPGs, but not the duplicate PNGs. Thanks again! Kelly ^hi! 15:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Derek Sandy Deletion

why was this deleted? he is one of the characters of the isle of wight, anyone who has ever been there will tell you so, check itunes and read the reviews of dancing in heaven!! COME ON YOU POUND!!!££££££££££££ Antoniou92 (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Derek sandy was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 because it did not indicate why the subject might be notable. If you think you can correct this, please feel free to recreate, but please also provide references, and correctly capitalise the name (i.e. create the article at Derek Sandy. Thanks, Ian¹³/t 15:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

CSD G11 userpage deletion

Please tell me where I can recover the information from my userpage that you deleted, which I was using as a sandbox. Do I need to create a subpage to use as a sandbox instead? I'd like to recover the coding so it can be used to create a future arcticle for a company that has many media references. Pursuant to CSD G11, please reply as to why the article cannot be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view.--ccchambers (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it to your sandbox for you. I hope this helps. Ian¹³/t 16:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Joe Wagner

Joe Wagner, was a Major League Baseball player, and even if you only played in one game, your notable because you played in the highest level of the pro sports. --Adam Penale (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've withdrawn and tagged it with {{references}} instead. It isn't hugely informative at present however. Ian¹³/t 20:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Lindsay Whalen Image

You (I think it was you) recently posted this under the image: No assertion that the image is not replaceable with a free alternative. Then, a bit later you posted this: The fact that none presently exists is irrelevant when determining if fair use is appropriate.

First you tell me that I did not make an assertion that the image is not replaceable. Then when I made that assertion, you tell me that my assertion is irrelevant.

I am new here, but I'm not quite sure I understand.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickv1025 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. You will see that at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#UULP under unacceptable use, you cannot claim fair-use for people still alive. The notice was given so that if the person was a hermit, dead, or no-longer plays (and that is why they are notable) and their appearance would be significantly different now, that you could state this, and the fair-use claim would stand. However, if none of these applies, sadly your image cannot be accepted as fair-use, as legally it is considered replaceable and therefore in breach of the copyrighters rights. I hope this helps. Ian¹³/t 19:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks for the link. I understand the thing about the living persons now. But now I have a dilemma. Cameras are not allowed inside the arenas where the WNBA players play. Only media personell with cameras are allowed in. So, the only pictures available of players are ones taken by media personell. I contacted many of these media people, and was successful with the source I am using for these pictures. If this is the absolute only source that is giving me permission to use their pictures taken inside games, and if nobody but media can take pictures, this picture is still not valid for upload? Nickv1025 (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My view on it is, to depict the player, they wouldn't have to be actually playing, so it is replaceable with a picture of them taken outside the arena. However, if you can argue sufficiently (I'm afraid I'm no expert) that the article requires a picture of them actually playing, and it is unlikely it will be possible to make a free alternative, then it would be valid. For example, with the arena picture, fair use is valid because you can't take a picture inside the arena. Ian¹³/t 22:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User 217.36.107.9

Hi Ian,

As a member of the UK Roads Project and an Administrator, I would be very grateful if you could possibly have a look at the contributions and the history of comments made by other users on his/her Talk Page (as the user keeps deleting them !!!). I feel the users' contributions are unhelpful and are close to vandalism...what are your thoughts?...Seth Whales (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Commando Krav Maga

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Commando Krav Maga. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Combatsurvival (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Ian¹³/t 16:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Block

Thank you! - Jimmy Hammers (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Ian¹³/t 16:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Logo files with missing fair-use rationale

If you come across any logos with missing fair-use rationales, it would be helpful if you could add a rationale using {{logo fur}} to the image's description page. The problem with tagging an image as {{di-no fair use rationale}} is that the original uploader may not see or understand the warning. If you add a rationale yourself, then the project keeps the logo and is better off than if the logo was deleted. --Eastmain (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Preventing copyright violation seems of higher priority to me. Usually, the image has sat there for 7 days, and there is no limit on recreating the image post-deletion. Ian¹³/t 16:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

British Rail Class List

{{User:Byeitical/British Rail}} — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 04:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

[{{tlu}} added to save space. Ian¹³/t 16:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Go oxford! Ian¹³/t 16:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice of request for deletion of editor Ian13 :)

Ian13, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion#Ian13 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish not to participate); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (actually it will). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 09:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Words fail me. Ian¹³/t 13:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted B roads

Hello Ian13

As an administrator with an interest in the UK roads project, can you please see what you can do about the Articles B1436 road, B1149 road and B1156 road. An editor using only an IP address seems intent on reverting these pages back to B roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme and then he/she has, in the past, places warning templates on my talk page. I have left notability notes on Article talk page but these seem not to be enough for this editor to leave these pages to stand alone. These actions seem to be rather disruptive and seem to go against constructive contributions made to improve road information on Wikipedia. Please let me know if you think that these pages are not worth keeping and I will no longer try to contribute to them and they can be assigned to the electronic paper basket. Your opinion will be very much appreciated.  stavros1  ♣ 

I should answer some points here. There is a clear consensus that the subjects at hand are not notable, and therefore not worthy of their own entries. There seems to be no indication from User:Stavros1 on there being multiple, independent, reliable sources to support their claim to the contrary. The user then made comments on talk pages and in edit summaries that slighted other contributors, and was reminded that our policy was to focus on content. They ignored this and made further comments as to the character of other contributors, including accusing participants at WP:UKRD of "road snobbery". I made an attempt to point out to the user that their actions were bordering on disruption, at which point they decided to remove all doubt by ranting about the attitudes of other contributors on three talk pages, including copying and pasting entire sections of policy pages into discussions. I also note the personal comments above. I hope this clears up why the user was warned for disruption. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been keeping an eye on this dispute since another user warned me of it (above). The clear consensus you speak of seems more opaque: there seems to be users on both side of the debate. Redirecting to a non-equivalent page is similar to deleting it, and thus seems like the sort of action which requires debate - but on a talk page, not through reverts. At Talk:B1156 road, some discussion has occurred and issues raised have not been addressed. It seems reasonable to me that the page content should remain in its former state until decided otherwise. With regards to references, the pages have 1, 3 and 1 references (respectively), and any bias claims could be resolved in ways other than effectively removing all the content. The copying and pasting of content to multiple discussions, whilst not necessarily wholly called for, they were all places where the discussion was occurring, so WP:AGF certainly doesn't make me think it was disruptive. User talk page templates are designed for cases where disruption is clear, otherwise a friendly note is usually more appropriate. I can't spot these attacks you speak of, but I am happy to comment if you link me to the appropriate page diff. There isn't much more to say about this debate, but I can only advice you both (although this likely applies more to 217.36.107.9 given previous edits) to make use of the article talk pages, and assume good faith. Ian¹³/t 12:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response to my communication. I note all your comments and would be more than pleased to enter into a debate about these pages. I had tried in the past to put my point of view across to the editor, but the user in question seems to think that I had been to strong in my criticism of his actions and tagged my talk page accordingly. I can only apologies to the editor if he felt I was not treating his actions in good faith, but he/she has failed to join into any constructive debate other than to say that the comments I had placed on the pages talk page were, in his/her opinion not valid, with no suggestion of what he/she thought would make these pages notable. In any case reverting the pages because he/she had decided for themselves that the article content was not notable is, as has been mentioned in other debates a form of deletion without consensus. I certainly regret getting into a reversion war with this editor as it is really a waste of both our times..  stavros1; ♣ 

Good. (As an aside, is there a reason your signature lacks a timestrap? ~~~ gives the signature, ~~~~ signature and time, ~~~~~ time.) Ian¹³/t 13:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I have made clear, I shall stop reverting the page when User:Stavros1 and accomplices stop recreating them. The situation is clear[1] - we need multiple, independent, reliable sources that demonstrate the route's notability. It's mere presence on a map does not. In any case, use of a map as a source would constitute WP:OR, since it involves joining the dots. I am bemused as to how you have some to the strange conclusion that I am causing the disruption here. If you need evidence of the contrary, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone 'Mr Anonymous' is indeed inappropriate in that case. However, people can get a little annoyed when they find their page is repeatedly reverted and the user doesn't discuss on the talk page. Your posting of a POINT message when in a dispute with that user can be seen as inappropriate, or even making a POINT yourself. This clearly is not a clear-cut content removal, because people are objecting. My recommendation to you would, if you can't reach a compromise, be to take the article to AfD (quite commonly, these end with the decision of redirect). Regarding this, if a little offhand, at least the user is trying to address why he thinks the deletion should stop. (This seems inappropriate to the discussion.) However, saying you will stop reverting when your page version is preserved is unconstructive: this isn't about succeeding, it is about improving the encyclopedia, and in disputes, the original version generally holds until discussion deems otherwise - otherwise, your editing is disruptive. Ian¹³/t 15:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisely how is flat out branding people as "completly unresonable and is disruptive", making legalistic text-dumps from guidelines, and accusing editors in good standing of "suffer[ing] from some sort of Road snobbery" acceptable behaviour? User:Stavros1 has neither apologised, nor given any hint that they would refrain from such in future. Most importantly of all, redirection is not deletion. This discussion cannot continue until you accept this fact. I cannot be constantly reminding administrators of things that they should already know. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

To a reader, redirection is effectively the same as deletion given the loss of content observed: both actions are reversible, and prevent (in passing) reading of pre-existing content. Ian¹³/t 16:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the assumption that I am supposed to have accomplices? Made by 217.36.107.9 in his comments above, an example of what he calls a personnel attack. I have no accomplices and unless the user has any evidence to the contrary I would hope he/she would withdraw this accusationStavros1 (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)