User talk:Just Chilling/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Western Infirmary Cologne Club

Re the Western Infirmary Cologne Club. I note that this page was deleted. The Western Infirmary Cologne Club is an illustrious social club for surgeons in Glasgow. Membership allows its members to use the letters MWICC after their name. An example can be seen on the back cover review for the following book; MRCS Practice Papers Part A: Paper 1 SBAs, by: Mr Irfan Halim ISBN: 9781905635610.

I believe this page should be reinstated to wikipedia.

iainmcgraw@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgraw52 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The way forward is to to produce a new article, in your user space, which shows that this club has had substantial editorial coverage in reliable sources. WP:ORG and WP:CITE refer. I should then be delighted to reinstate the page. TerriersFan (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Chaz Jankel

Hi, could you move the page to this title, please? There is a redirect, but this is by far the usual spelling, so it annoys me! Rothorpe (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. TerriersFan (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Madeleine McCann Talk Page

its been a long time since iv gone on there, noticed your message and i do have a picture of the newpaper cover what was used on the 100 days, if you are still interested —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sghfdhdfghdfgfd (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly would be pleased with sight of this. TerriersFan (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Lydgate Junior School

You deleted this article that I prod'ed, or rather made it a redirect. I have no problem with this, as it is clearly not notable, but technically a prod should stay for 7 days before deletion. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

An interesting point that I have not considered. However, I do not regard a redirect as a deletion since it can be undone as an editorial action. The problem is that if prods are allowed to expire and get deleted then they disappear from sight. I continue to think that redirecting, merging content where possible,is the most pragmatic way forward. It also allows any editor who thinks that a standalone page is justifed, to undo it. TerriersFan (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bduke Silverscape (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Little Anthony & The Imperials

Hello again. Could you move this to Little Anthony and the Imperials, please? Rothorpe (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To whom do I send the bill? :-) TerriersFan (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm skint, but profuse thanks. I have a feeling there was yet another... 20:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Trivium

Hello, again. Would you care to intervene at Aoxomoxoa? Rothorpe (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Been away but assessed now. TerriersFan (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Mary's Academy, Lalazar, Rawalpindi. (SMA)

As you suggested, I have modified my suggestion to be good with either delete/merge or redirect/merge. I don't know the Wikipedia technicalities, so I didn't realize it made a difference. --MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that someone has now tagged the article for speedy deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the speedy tag - I don't think that is an appropriate approach when an article is already involved in an AfD discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that settles that. Somebody closed it as a redirect, just as you wanted. --MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

British University American Football AfDs

Hi, as you have participated in a number of these AfDs, I thought you might also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plymouth Blitz (BUAFL) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Collegiate American Football League Pit-yacker (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Huddersfield Literature Festival

Hi TF. It isn't really my subject, but I have given it a head start and I hope I've provided sufficient Notability to save it from deletion! Richard Harvey (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice work, thank you. TerriersFan (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

West Yorkshire Derby

I think this one is within in your sphere of knowledge than many! Richard Harvey (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll have a look at it. TerriersFan (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel Shreve

Re Israel Shreve. I notice TerriersFan attempted to delete the Wikipedia page for Israel Shreve before the article was finished. The updated page lists five references for a high ranking officer in the American Revolution who fought in several battles. His son and regiment both have their own Wikipedia pages. Israel Shreve is a proper subject for a separate Wikipedia article and I request that deletion is not repeated. If TerriersFan wishes to edit to allow the second half of the text to be seen, please do so. You may respond to my talk page if you desire. Asburyparker (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I deleted the redirect Israel shreve which was the incorrect initial capitalisation. I have no interest in the article itself. TerriersFan (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for merging the two articles. The separate articles were, of course, accidental. Don't know how it happened. The edit page said "delete" Israel Shreve so i assumed it was the entire article being deleted. Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asburyparker (talk • contribs) 23:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Schools

Hi Terriers, I recently made a suggestion on WT:WPSCH, but the only reply came from a friend who is not actually directly concerned with schools. I do quite a lot of work on schools (not only in the UK) and I have two concerns:

1. There are 320 or so people listed as members of WP:SCHOOLS, but as Keith points out, not only do the majority not seem to be very active at all, but some have never, or hardly ever posted on Wikipedia! Do you think we could split the list into active and non-active members? (I could do this).
2. I would like to canvas some of the recent, regular, active members to make either a UK Schools task force or daughter project.

FWIW, I have experience in Wikiproject work - I created and run one (WP:WORCS). I have experience in schools - I founded several and ran them (they are not listed on Wikipedia).-Kudpung (talk) 11:19 am, Today (UTC+7)

I should be happy to support that. TerriersFan (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

RfA where you may have valuable insights to offer

Hi. It looks like your activity is only intermittent these days, so you may not see this any time soon. However, I want to call your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mandsford. Since Mandsford has been an active participant in many of the same types of AfDs that you participate in, it occurs to me that you might have good insights to offer at the RfA. --Orlady (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brown bread (disambiguation)

The article Brown bread (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only two articles use this page, where Brown bread can more easily simply directly refer to the second article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Topperfalkon (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sir Walter St John's School

I note you changed the title to SWSJ Grammar School which was its final title (not necessarily the correct title). As the school used the title without "Grammar" for over 130 years, but only 43 years with it, I believe the former to be more correct. I have not altered it, but feel the new title is limited.

DonJay (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Taurus the Cat

Not an obscure pop group that I want moved, but a user, a kid I suspect, who is being drearily persistent at Sunspot. As always, many thanks for your kind attention... Rothorpe (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

St. Andrew's Episcopal School (Amarillo, Texas)

As an administrator and member of the school projects, I would like to know how you feel about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St._Andrew's_Episcopal_School_(Amarillo,_Texas). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copritch (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi TF. Please take a look at this thread. There is probably no need for you to get involved in the one AfD it concerns, My interpretation of notability for schools is based on the premise and widely practiced notion that primary (elementary) and middle schools are not inherently notable, but as a compromise, they are offered the opportunity to be merged and redirected to their school district or locality, rather than either being outright deleted, or taking up editor time at AfD because of weak attempts to rescue them.

As I am currently caretaker of the almost dead schools project, with the input from others, I've recast most of the pages for clarity, and I'm in the process of crafting something to get the WP:WPSCH/AG page accepted as an official guideline (at present it still apparently only has essay status). I would therefore very much welcome your comments on this issue. Please reply on my talk page if you can. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Missing

Hello, I have noted your absense and added you to WP:MW. Please feel free to remove yourself should you ever return. CT Cooper · talk 08:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Darfield Upperwood Primary School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Darfield Upperwood Primary School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darfield Upperwood Primary School until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TheGrappler (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Relieved

Nice to see you back TF. You've been missed, and several editors were getting seriously concerned. --Kudpung (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is nice to see your still around TerriersFan. CT Cooper · talk 11:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. TerriersFan (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you. --Orlady (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Delighted to see you back on my talk page---I left a reply there. Rothorpe (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

An invite

Not often there is a special event in Derby for wikipedians TF. Do come along it would be good to meet. See here Victuallers (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

AZ boarding schools

I came across this long list of abusive boarding schools. It lists quite a few, including Canyon State Academy, Copper Canyon Academy (on the to-do list), Oak Creek Ranch School (on the now-very short MEA list) and several we do not have, plus Spring Ridge. How do I trust this source or what it says, though? Raymie (t • c) 02:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That site is not, of course, a reliable source. However, it does provide a basis for further exploration. The way forward would be to carry out a Google search on the establishments listed coupled with some of the incidents/accusations to see if you can find reliable coverage that can then be added to the page. TerriersFan (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Freddie and the Dreamers

Another ancient pop group, another row. One of the participants (apparently in both) has left a note on my talk page. You may wish to intervene. Cheers, Rothorpe (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)---Excellent, thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting this. Perhaps no longer needed? Rothorpe (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Farnell01

Hi, regarding User:Farnell01, I thought that when you block a user indef, you don't blank their talk page, instead you just put the indef block template at the top of their talk page (if this is not the case, you can leave me a message), thankyou. Round Maple (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• I also looked at this edit, so it appears that the vandalisum has been removed by another editor. Round Maple (talk) 08:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Blanking the talk page is normal for blocked vandalism-only accounts when review is improbable. In less clear cases then the procedure you describe is better. In any case, the history remains available for interested editors. TerriersFan (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason I noticed was I was looking at the pages that linked to Guisley Secondary School (assuming that the AFD notice would sill be on User talk:Farnell01), so that I could find the account neme and vandalisum on Guiseley, but it looks like it has been removed by another editor as I cited above. Round Maple (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Round Maple is one of dozens of socks of User:Crouch, Swayle, and has been blocked. Creates stubs about tiny English hamlets, and mass creates dozens of worthless redirects. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I did wonder because he displayed an advanced view on policy that was unusual for a new user!! TerriersFan (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD discussion

Are you aware of this and this? Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 21:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. Whatever happened to the policy of only the strength of the arguments mattering?! LMAO. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 04:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ask the closing admin for a detailed justification and then possibly take it to WP:DRV? TerriersFan (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

How does that work? Am I (or anyone else) entitled to a detailed justification? IOW, is it something that an admin. closing an AfD has to be prepared to write should anyone request it, or could my asking him that simply be interpreted as my questioning his integrity and put him right on the defensive? You appear to have walked this road many times before, so how do these issues normally play out? Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 18:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Any editor can politely ask a closing admin for his reasoning and for him to reconsider his close; this is normal. He closed with this statement "Arguements for deleting have stronger basis in policy, guidelines, and general practice regarding single-game articles. As well, there is very little support for keeping this as an article." You can ask him:

a) did he disregard those !votes that said "per previous AFD" which was based on a different draft?

b) did he disregard those !votes that said "not notable" without explaining how the page failed WP:GNG?

c) how did ""Arguements for deleting have stronger basis in policy, guidelines," when the page met WP:GNG and the only other policy-based argument WP:NOTNEWS was debunked?

d) why did he not consider 'merge' which had good support?

If the answers are not satisfactory then you can go to WP:DRV. TerriersFan (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I'm a bit ambivalent about the existence of this particular article since its author (and some other folk who I know have argued for its existence in the past) could not be bothered to even show up to vote in that AfD. I decided a week ago (4/15) that that AfD was probably a lost cause and that I didn't need the hassle I was getting contributing there, so I quit posting to it. Then I realized I had not even voted in the AfD discussion myself, but had only made responses to other people's comments, so on 4/19 I went back and placed my vote. Not that there was really any debate going on ... the outcome of that AfD was done and dusted the moment it was opened. Based on what the AfD adjudicating admin. wrote in his closing comment I have no confidence that he even read 90% of what was posted - he appears to have simply made the knee-jerk decision that was expected of him.

The problem I have now WRT this AfD is that, if I pursued its overturning along the path you just outlined, I would simply be perceived at each stage as some kind of fanatic - after all, 50% or more of the text in the AfD was generated by me - that cannot accept due process nor consensus. My current feeling is that if prior creators of the article are too apathetic to defend its existence then it probably doesn't deserve to be in article space, whether it satisfies Wikipedia policy and guidelines or not. BTW, based on the arguments presented for deleting that article, the two "Battle of Old Trafford" write-ups that are currently in article space (which I mentioned in the AfD) should also be deleted. There was nothing notable nor significant in footballing terms about either of those two games. But I suspect that none of those people who voted to delete or merge the Spurs-City article will be slapping an AfD on either of those two articles any time soon. I wonder why that is? Take care. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 22:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about this issue some more over the last few days, it strikes me that even if an AfD was overturned via WP:DRV, anyone who sided with the "deletion" vote during the AfD could simply slap another AfD on it within hours of any decision reinstating the article, or even use the DelRev process itself to overturn the previous DelRev. In the AfD discussion I argued for the right of AfD-ed articles to be recreated after suitable improvement (and thus no deleted article on a reasonable topic should ever be considered to be immune from recreation in the future), so surely the same consideration has to also apply in the other direction, and articles restored after DelRev cannot similarly be considered to be permanently immune from further AfDs in the future. IMO a likely outcome of a successful DelRev process would be, sooner or later, another AfD for the article, with the article also possibly ending up on the "list of perennial requests". Are things as bleak as I perceive them to be?

WP:DRV states, "Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed." (my emphasis added). A good portion of that AfD debate was taken up by the nominator trying to "promote his viewpoint" not by recourse to intelligent and logical argument backed up by reference to pertinent Wikipedia guidelines, but rather by a continued sequence of accusations of malfeasance on my part in recreating the article, which clearly fit the descriptions of "attacks on other editors", "casting aspersions" and "making accusations" (although in my case, they were not accusations of bias). In the Afd I asked this person a number of times to cease doing what he was doing, to retract his statements, and to have all of that text moved out of the AfD debate (my suggestion was to the Talk page) since it waa quite irrelevant to the discussion, but instead a case of his trying to score points via ad hominem attacks on my character. If I understand that above quoted statement correctly, all of the nominator's actions in that area of the discussion should have resulted in that AfD being speedily closed. I'm not sure where any of that gets us, but it does indicate to me that Wikipedia guidance isn't worth the paper it's not written on! Which is another reason I'm not very motivated to pursue any of this. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 05:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As an Administrator I can assure you that there would be zero chance of your beng blocked by going to DRV nor would the closing admin be offended - this is just a normal procss. The only caveat I would make is that the procedure requires that you politely ask the closing admin to reconsider, with reasons, first. If the DRV overturned the decision as 'keep' there would not be an immediate AFD; and if there was it would be speedilly closed. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

My receiving a block is not my main concern here. I didn't join Wikipedia in order to pursue confrontation, so I simply don't want the aggravation involved in taking this issue any further. I've just wasted considerable time and effort the other week posting sound logical arguments in defense of that article (which is what you are meant to do in an AfD, rather than only voting your preconceived opinion or devoting most of your words casting aspersions on others) only to see it closed by an admin. who appears (based on his own closure statement and actions) to have based his decision more on his own preconceived ideas rather than after due consideration of the presented debate.

If he had actually read the text on the AfD page with due diligence (in order to make a fair judgment of the presented arguments) then he would have known to fix my links in it to the "speedy delete" discussion on the article's Talk page (all of which got deleted together with the article) which was the point of entry for that AfD to even exist. That text was clearly part and parcel of the presented arguments in the article's defense and to allow it to be deleted in that manner is the equivalent of that admin. going through the text on the AfD page and removing bits of text he disagreed with in order that his ultimate decision would make more sense. If he doesn't understand that his actions can be construed in that manner then he shouldn't be an admin.

Wikipedia has lots of documented policies and guidance in place that, when you read them, make a lot of sense. However, when you observe on a regular basis the obvious intent of these documents being perverted and twisted in practice by other editors and admins. who are more concerned with getting their own way, or in scoring points off of others in order to feed their own egos, one becomes very disenchanted with the whole Wikipedia project. It isn't at all what it claims to be. If you personally feel that this AfD stands a good chance of being overturned, why don't you pursue the issue yourself? If you take the lead in such an effort I'll support you wherever I can, but I'm not going to be your patsy - which is effectively the role I've just been playing in arguing for the existence of that article throughout the AfD process, whilst the person who actually wanted to see the article back in article space couldn't even be bothered to put in an appearance in order to cast a vote in its defense.

You appear to have much more experience in such matters than I and also have the clout of being an admin. to boot. Additionally, your own pursuit of the issue won't appear to be a case of personal "sour grapes" which, whatever my own motivations for pursuing it, is how my pursuit of the issue will now come across to others (since I was the de facto creator of the AfD-ed article and the person that was the recipient of WP:AGF abuse on the AfD page by other editors who took the fact that I supported the existence of the article as a personal affront to them).

Right now, my current feelings WRT that AfD process and Wikipedia in general are best summed up by Jose Mourinho's recent words: "Sometimes I am a little bit disgusted to live in this world, but this is the world we live in." In the Wikipedia world I currently find myself living in, courtesy, logic and common sense clearly carry no muster - unfortunately, those are the only tools I have at my disposal so I can see no real point in my single-handedly pursuing this issue any further. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 18:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri

Hello, it's me again. I'm getting into an edit war here: a person who says 'shorter distance' is better than 'smaller distance' (or maybe it's the other way round) simply as an excuse to restore his other edits. Perhaps you could take a look. Thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have had a look at this. He now appears to have accepted your 'Sun' edit. In truth I don't think the other issues are worth arguing about so my suggestion is just to leave things be. TerriersFan (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMP Negeri 1 Blitar

Hi TF. I know it looks as if I'm doing an about turn on the way I have voted on some school AfD regarding notability accrued from alumni, but yes, if sufficient alumni have been responsible for significant media coverage in which their school has been mentioned, then of course I'm happy to support your rationale as I have done here. During your absence, CT and I had a lot of discussion about the possibility of clarifying the guidelines for schools and perhaps getting the WP:WPSCH/AG upgraded to guideline status, and we have vastly revamped the school project pages. Your input, time permitting, would be most welcome, seeing that you used to be so pro-active on school issues. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Bernard's Catholic School, Brisbane

I need your advice in case, as a relatively new admin, I start doing AfD closures. How in your opinion, does Keep: 3, Merge/Redirect: 3, Delete: 2, equate to "Delete" for a school? I'm not bothered personally about the outcome - my question is purely academic. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know either. Since 'merge' is a flavour of 'keep' the balance of views were clearly against deletion. There were no strong arguments for deletion either. The case against merging is that none of the content was sourced but that could have been easily fixed. TerriersFan (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not going to kick up a fuss at WP:DRV though. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Martins Creek Elementary Middle

The notability claim here is not sufficient to meet notability guidelines. The school lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. The ranking is interesting but it's not sufficient to warrant a dedicated article. The article has been merged , in its entirety, the districts article. Please continue to improve it there.--RadioFan (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I am in the process of expanding the article. Please stop your disruptive redirects. TerriersFan (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless you've more of a claim of notability that the awards listed, I dont see how this is going to meet notability guidelines for a dedicated article. Again, please continue to improve the section on the district's article. --RadioFan (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up that I've created and AFD discussion on this article rather than revert your changes again. I'm still not seing it as meeting notability guidelines and would like to get some other editors opinions.--RadioFan (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A much better option, thank you. TerriersFan (talk)

3RR

I DO NOT appreciate being accused of violating the 3 revert rule and I do not being appreciate being threatened with blocking, especially when the accusation is completely baseless. Both you and I have reverted the page in question twice today, not 3 times.. You have over 37k edits, you should know better than this.--RadioFan (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You have not been accused of a 3RR violation you have been warned to be careful not to violate. I have reverted your redirect twice which is permissible; you have redirected 3 times which is the limit. TerriersFan (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

How did you expect leaving the 3RR template on an experienced editor's talk page would be received? As a warning or an accusation? The R stands for Revert, not redirect. I am within the limits and will not revert any changes on this page for at least 24 hours. --RadioFan (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people

Just a reminder, biographies created after March 2010 must be referenced per this policy the BLPProd template should not be removed until references are included in the article.--RadioFan (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

New infobox for US schools?

Are you aware of this? Is it something that needs a consensus chat? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caversham Primary School (2nd nomination)

See Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Under what understanding of that policy are you allowed to insert in Wikipedia a full article which is presumably still under copyright, as you did in the talk page of that AFD? Better to include a link, or to quote the one relevant sentence. Please remove the article. Thanks! Edison (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. TerriersFan (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well done. Edison (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christ Church C.E Primary School

We really need to get the WP:WPSCH/AG page established as a guideline. There seems to be a rush of primary schools for deletion recently including mass deletions. I'm sure these are all made (and voted on) in good faith, but experience shows that very few users are fully aware of all the complexities of deletion criteria and their exceptions. It needs to be made finally clear whether nn primary schools should be radically deleted, or redirected. Even I am beginning to have my doubts as to what is correct, especially since the highly controversial comments made at length on my RfA. Suggestions? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for these points but I'm away from my machine until tomorrow late evening when I'll reply. TerriersFan (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ghost towns

You wrote in your edit summaries: "...Declined Prod - all inhabited places are notable..." But how do we know they exist?

• PROD contested
• PROD contested

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Prods are for uncontroversial deletions - see WP:PROD. Settlements whose existence is problematic are not uncontroversial. The appropriate way forward is to list them at AFD which gets the broadest range of views. TerriersFan (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Jadu

Hi, you recently deleted The Jadu as an expired PROD. I don't dispute that; the state of the article deserved the prod, and when it expired, it ought to have been deleted. Unfortunately, I didn't notice the PROD until after the deletion or I would have tried to rescue it at the time.

The Jadu was actually a quite well-known and notable band before its breakup; the article as written did not properly reflect that.

I am asking you to reinstate the article and its accompanying talk page, so I can update it appropriately. I've made a proposed revision of the article at User:TJRC/Attic/Page10. I would just recreate it, but I'd like to retain any edit history for GDFL/CCSA purposes, and any comments that may have been on the talk page.

Alternatively, if you could WP:USERFY the article to my user space, I'll update the userfied copy and then move it to article space. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Now at User:TJRC/The Jadu. TerriersFan (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. I see a number of Kpop acts were deleted on PROD recently. I haven't heard of most of them, but I may similarly request userfication for Brown Eyes, Clon and Diva (group), each of which were very prominent in their time; but I'll wait until I can be certain that I have material to document their notability. TJRC (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Jadu

Hi -- I believe I may have erred. I saw that a prod was removed from The Jadu. So I sought deletion, as the article has been IMHO non-notable for five years now. But I now notice that the article was removed to user space. If (as I suspect may be the case) it is fine to have a non-notable article of this sort in userspace, having been just created, how do I best undo my AFD nomination? Tx. You can respond here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I have closed the MFD for you. As you will see from the section above the user concerned requested userfication of the article to enable him to improve it. This is accepted practice provided that the article only remains in user space for such period as is reasonable for the page to be developed. I suggest that you watch the new page, and assess the version that is moved back to article space, and take it to AFD if you remain of the opinion that the subject fails the notability guidelines. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. Much appreciated. I'm glad a good user is looking for a way to improve it. Apologies for the confusion. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - Quantapoint PROD Decline

I just wanted to thank you for declining the PROD of Quantapoint. The gentleman who created and maintained the page recently left the company. When I found out about the proposed deletion, I signed up as contributor and began the process of learning proper procedures and etiquette for page editing. When I logged on to edit and update the Quantapoint page, I found that you removed the PROD. I will work to improve the page going forward. - Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreynolds-qp (talk • contribs) 00:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Lee Baldry

Where can I see that this has previously been kept at AfD? The current article appears to have been started on 19 May 2011 - so any previously kept article must later have been deleted at some point. And whether or not that was the case, surely this article still comes within the scope of {{prod BLP}} as a newly created article about a living person with no RS. Please explain. Thanks. PamD (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've now found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Baldry (2nd nomination) by using "What links here". It was deleted then. It had previously been kept at AfD in 2006. Looks as if I need to take it back to AfD, then. PamD (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd have thought that {{prod BLP}} is different from an ordinary prod, so will add that template explicitly rather than just as prod-2 comment. PamD (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Leonard Jacobson

This was unnecessary. I don't mind that the A7 was declined, but a "claim" to notability is not a reason to decline a PROD -- not sure if you investigated, but if you did it should be obvious that he is not notable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Fjalor i Gjeologjise

Just out of curiosity, what was your reasoning to decline the PROD on Fjalor i Gjeologjise? Inks.LWC (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As you will see from WP:PROD, one of the conditions that admins check before deletion is "No objections have been raised on the talk page." When, as here, there is an objection then the Prod must be declined. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That was an objection to the speedy deletion, not the PROD. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It was made after the speedy deletion was replaced by a Prod and we cut inexperienced editors slack in not understanding our procedures. It was clear that he didn't want the page deleted and that's sufficient to make it not 'uncontentious'. TerriersFan (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. I had thought it had been there before. Thanks for clearing that up for me, though! Inks.LWC (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

PROD of disambiguation page

I noticed that you removed the PROD from the Solarus article stating that PROD is unsuitable for disambiguation pages. However, the WP:PROD introduction states that "Proposed deletion is only applicable to mainspace articles, lists, and disambiguation pages;...". Since you have de-PROD'd it, I'll now take it through AfD. Regards. RJH (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops! I stand corrected, thanks. TerriersFan (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

BladeLogic

I see that you removed the BladeLogic page. I totally understand the desire to kill advert spam, but I just heard a reference to the company for the first time in connection with my work, and I wanted to find out more about them. The deleted article is obviously POV, but I think it could be stripped of the enthusiastic language and be turned into something useful. How about reviving the article? modify 15:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the article and moved it to User:Modify/BladeLogic to enable you to work on it. In addition to a rewrite, it needs substantial new references before being moved back to article space. Please note that it cannot remain in user space indefinitely, but only while you are developing it, so please let me know if you decide not to fix it. TerriersFan (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What kind of references do you have in mind? I won't have time to do much research for it, I'm afraid. If you think this will be necessary, I think it's fine to kill the article again. 64.175.41.171 (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The last reply was made by me when I wasn't logged in. modify 05:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

OK; I have moved it back to article space as a redirect. The previous content is there in the History in the event that you want to develop the page further. TerriersFan (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

BatchPhoto

I understand that Wikipedia is no place for advertisers but BatchPhoto is a legitimate product with hundreds of thousands of users world-wide. I believe that the article was as legitimate as possible without any advertising talk. If it needs additional work/references I will be happy to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmin Unguru (talk • contribs) 13:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have moved it to User:Cosmin Unguru/BatchPhoto to enable you to develop it. Useful guidance is contained at Wikipedia:Your first article. This page cannot remain in user space indefinitely but only while you develop it. Before the article is moved back to article space you need to find independent reviews to support its notability. Being 'legitimate' by itself is not enough. TerriersFan (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, what do you think about the page with the updates I've made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmin Unguru (talk • contribs) 11:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The sourcing is better but I think that notability is still borderline. WP:NPOV also needs to be considered; it would help if any criticisms of the software could be sourced. Meanwhile I have sought the advice of User:RadioFan who attached the original Prod. TerriersFan (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Australian Standard 2243.2: 2006 Safety in Laboratories - Chemical Aspects

Hi TerriersFan, Thanks for the notification that you removed the prod nomination from this article - I'm about to take it to AfD if you're interested in commenting. There was no need to remind me to not restore the prod tag though - I'm a long established editor and an admin and was well aware of that rule :) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's the problem with using a notification template; I'll manually craft a comment next time. :-) TerriersFan (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Beer Man

Just a heads up... you deleted Beer Man, an article on a criminal. I've re-created it as a redirect to an album containing a song by that name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Concordion

Hi TerriersFan, You recently removed an article I added about the Concordion acceptance testing framework. It's frustrating to have spent time writing a clear explanation of the framework, only to have it deleted! I understand that Wikipedia has notability guidelines, but I wondered why you'd singled out Concordion as being not notable enough? Concordion is mentioned in several books on agile software testing (Amazon Search) and seems at least as notable as the other frameworks mentioned on the Acceptance_testing page. Is it too late to restore the page? Thanks, Infrablue (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this article was deleted because it had been subject to a Prod notice for over seven days. I have moved it to User:Infrablue/Concordion to enable you to develop it. Useful guidance is contained at WP:GNG. This page cannot remain in user space indefinitely but only while you develop it. Before the article is moved back to article space you need to find independent reviews to support its notability. TerriersFan (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Infrablue (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

PRODs

Hi, thanks for letting me know about your de-proddings, but I always watch the relevant pages so there's no need. Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 07:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of instant runoff voting to other voting systems

I agree on merging, but most of the article is not worthy of being reincluded in the IRV article and I have said on the articles talk page.Phil Ian Manning (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

WildClaw Theatre Company

Thanks for notifying me of the de-prod. I'm going to see if I can find any reliable sources for notability this week; if not, I'll take your advice and send it to AfD. Yunshui (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge/redirects

If you look at the page for the school you will see that there is no article yet on that particular school district, hence the proposed deletion. Whenever a school district page has been created, I always redirect non-notable schools to that page; in fact, I've done that at least three times in the past week. Neutrality^talk 22:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Where there is no district page, and you don't feel like creating one, then a merge/redirect to the lowest level locality is the way to go. That, however, is a secondary issue. The main point that I was making was that without a sound deletion reason being specified then Prods will be declined. TerriersFan (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted OscilloScoop

Hi, you recently deleted "OscilloScoop" ‎due to: (Expired PROD, concern was: unremarkable software. No claim of notability. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sourcs.). The software was the top app listed on iTunes Top Charts and has much press coverage and reviews, including winning the "Favorite Website Award." The app has 94,000 hits on google, and here are a sample of independent press links including major news sources like FastCompany:

http://www.creativeapplications.net/iphone/oscilloscoop-iphone-ipad-sound/ http://www.wiretotheear.com/2011/05/03/oscilloscoop/ http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663839/oscilloscoop-ipad-app-turns-electro-djing-into-a-video-game http://www.148apps.com/reviews/oscilloscoop-review/ http://www.thefwa.com/mobile/oscilloscoop

Please undelete. Lavatusa (talk)

Hi, this article was deleted because it had been subject to a Prod notice for over seven days. I have moved it to User:Lavatusa/OscilloScoop to enable you to develop it. Useful guidance is contained at WP:GNG. This page cannot remain in user space indefinitely but only while you develop it. Before the article is moved back to article space you need to find independent reviews, in reliable sources, to support its notability. TerriersFan (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

WildClaw Theatre Company

Hi TerriersFan,

I have, as per your advice, listed WildClaw Theatre Company at AfD. It's the first time I've started a deletion discussion; if you have a moment, perhaps you'd be kind enough to check that I've followed the procedure correctly?

Cheers, Yunshui (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the listing is fine. It is considered good practice to place {{subst:AfD-notice|WildClaw Theatre Company}} on the talk pages of all substantive contributors. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ebbeny Faranda

Hi TerriersFan,

You recently deleted “Ebbeny Faranda” due to: ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: unremarkable news presenter, lacks significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources). Ebbeny Faranda is a news presenter for Channel 9 News, with co-workers, Louise Momber and Matt Tinney. Both Louise Momber and Matt Tinney have used the same references, which Ebbeny Faranda also had on her Wikipedia article as well as reliable 3rd party sources.

Please undelete. Ebbeny Faranda — Preceding unsigned comment added by FabiM82 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this article was deleted because it had been subject to a Prod notice for over seven days. I have moved it to User:FabiM82/Ebbeny Faranda‎ to enable you to develop it. Useful guidance is contained at WP:GNG. This page cannot remain in user space indefinitely but only while you develop it. Before the article is moved back to article space you need to find substantial coverage, in reliable sources, to support its notability. TerriersFan (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Tweedle Dee

Hi, me again with another requested move. Could you change this to "Tweedlee Dee", please? Despite the record label in the photo, it's the usual spelling and the true pronunciation (somewhat removed from Tweedledum). Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. TerriersFan (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I notice, in passing, that the 'Hall of Fame inductee' link is broken. TerriersFan (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that. I think I'll just remove it... Rothorpe (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Left Behind characters

Hi Terriers Fan,

I noticed that you deleted several Left Behind character articles after a proposed deletion was left uncontested. I believe the characters to be sufficiently notable to justify their own articles, therefore I have restored the articles and added references to them to demonstrate their notability. I would greatly appreciate it if you would contact me if you decide to start a deletion discussion about either of the articles in the future.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for this courtesy heads up. However, I will be taking no further action on the pages. TerriersFan (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ebbeny Faranda

Hi TerriersFan,

You recently deleted “Ebbeny Faranda” due to: ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: unremarkable news presenter, lacks significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources). Reliable sources has now been added to the wikipedia articel. How do I add the article back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FabiM82 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Click the 'Move' button; the new title should be: Ebbeny Faranda; uncheck 'Leave a redirect behind'. However, the page simply is not referenced well enough; if you move it across in its present state then there will have to be deletion discussion. All the keys facts need independent sources. In addition reliable sources need to describe her work directly and in detail. YouTube clips do not constitute reliable sources. See WP:Cite and WP:BIO. Useful information is contained in WP:Your first article. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Temple Sinai (Portsmouth, Virginia)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Temple Sinai (Portsmouth, Virginia). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Basket of Puppies 22:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Free rationale for File:Lonsdale Book.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lonsdale Book.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Francophone AfD

Would it be considered disruptive to nominate this for deletion again? I agree with your sentiments in the close. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 21:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry; yes. Though consensus does change, it needs to be given a few months before renominating. TerriersFan (talk)

Chaos Films

Hi TerriersFan,

I am a bit confused as to why you deleted the article of Chaos Films. I cited sources from IMDB.com and our website that showed that the films we created were legitimate. The films that we created were very important and powerful and one was even released theatrically in the Middle east, The Jerusalem Syndrome.

Since we sited the sources I don't understand why it was deleted. I also don't understand what you meant by searching for news articles on Google News. Is that a requirement for an article that you need to have sources from Google News?

Thanks, hopefully I can improve the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongebob2005 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Tim Huckaby

TerriersFan I thank you for taking the time to work on the Tim Huckaby article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Huckaby Softdevusa (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of "International Sushi Day"

Hi TerriersFan,

When navigating to the Wikipedia page "International Sushi Day", I recently discovered you had removed it. I'm not the creator of this page, but I had to wonder, why was this page deleted?

If it stays deleted, a mention should be made on the Sushi page.

(sorry if that was a bit rude or abrupt)

Dikuno

Dikuno (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I deleted the page in the light of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Sushi Day. By all means go ahead and add a reliably sourced reference at Sushi. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I see your footbridge article is now in Czech, (Check out the Wright Challange?). Cheers Victuallers (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I had completely forgotten how to deal with middle school articles like Algonquin Middle School‎. Thank you for taking care of it! --Danger (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

CSD A7

Thanks, however, I've already seen the removal note. Also, with all due respect, the deletion process here confuses me and makes little sense. If Wikipedia is to remain integrity and credibility, it is to remove all hoaxes and/or obvious non-notable articles. The process in deleting articles is unnecessarily long and confusing in my opinion. For example: I put up an article for CSD and a user removed/contested it and told me it was not proper CSD (I went with the blatant hoax option). Go figure, five days later an admin removed it and cited THE SAME REASON which was blatant hoax. So in other words, I was correct. I've also had an admin(or maybe a user) replace my CSD for an article with a AFD...the end result? deletion. So it's in Wiki's best interest to let blatant hoaxes or obvious non-notables to remain another week? I understand the rules are rules so that is probably all you can say, but wikipedia doesn't seem to have a forum so how else can I vent frustration? LOL. I'm just annoyed at people telling me my CSD was wrong, only to find out the article was removed days later ANYWAYS. It has put me off nominations so now I've just been tagging, minus a couple nom's. Also, Tha Joker is not notable whatsoever as he is a mixtape rapper, would I have been better suited at placing a CSD? I put up a PROD, and the article is still there. If Tha Joker is notable, then will I be allowed to create articles for other mixtape rappers? Another example as you can see above: Hendrell D. Remus was nominated for CSD by myself however it was switched to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hendrell_D._Remus and it looks like it'll be deleted. Come on... why not just delete it right away? It's nuts imo. Again, I'm not trying to be rude or anything. The deletion process is just so confusing. I wish we had a forum so we can all chip in and discuss this process. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit busy at the moment so I can't cover all your points but to deal with two specific matters:

• I have just deleted Tha Joker as an expired Prod - Prods cannot be deleted until they have been up for 7 days. Because he claimed to have been associated with other, notable, singers a Prod was better than a speedy and was correct.
• Hendrell_D._Remus was declined as a speedy because it was claimed that he was an award-winning director hence the AfD. Because speedy deletions take place without consensus they are suitable for only the most clear-cut cases - if there is any doubt then use an AfD or Prod instead. The bar for surviving an AfD is much higher than for not being speedied.

I should be happy to assist with future, specific, cases. TerriersFan (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Leuven Cricket Club

I do not think that I really agree with you. But, in a hopefully co-operative spirit, I have restored the article for you to WP:PROD. If you feel that prod is appropriate, clearly we do not disagree on the merit of the article.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. At the moment I agree that the article clearly fails to meet our notability standards. However, since it plays in a national league, as opposed to being, for example, a village team I'd like to give the author 7 days to fix things up, if he can. TerriersFan (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Decined prod

Hi

Some time ago you closed a prod [1] with "Declined Prod - all inhabited places are notable". Please can you point me to where the information is about this place's existence and inhabitation?

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: Unani and Ayurvedic Medical College & Hospital

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Unani and Ayurvedic Medical College & Hospital, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! TerriersFan (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, I did discuss this with another SysOp – User:Ched Davis (→ User talk:Ched Davis#Notable topic? ←), and he agreed that the article page is of questionable notability. The main reason behind me pushing it for deletion is based on the conduct of WP:CPUSHing editor – Sumaiya snigdha (talk · contribs) (with inclinations towards being a WP:SPA, IMO), who had repeatedly reintroduced adverty/bloggy/spammy contents, including the adding of a facebook page as a source, uploading an image file without any written persmission and/or questionable copyrights from a blog for reuse on the aforementioned article page. Having said that, how do I nominate this on AFD? Or could you please help assist in this, thank you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• The steps to be followed are at WP:AFDHOWTO. TerriersFan (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Noted. And... seeing that you're doing what you can in your ability to rescue this article page, I'm just really glad that it has come to this end. To which, I shall drop the AFD as it is clearly in good hands now. Just keep an eye on that Sumaiya chap, because I really wonder what it would take to get him to talk. Cheers, mate! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Karen Pryor

Hello,

We were wondering if you could provide us with any information as to why the Karen Pryor wikipedia page was deleted. We would love any information you could provide.

Thank you very much, Karen Pryor ClickerTraining 70.88.200.153 (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I deleted the page because it was an expired Prod that had been in place for 7 days. The concern about the page was that, though it made several bold claims about Pryor, none of the material was backed up by independent reliable sources. The page was tagged as needing such sources nearly 4 years ago but no substantive improvement has been made to the sourcing in that time. What we are looking for is coverage of Pryor in reputable, independent publications (not blogs, user websites etc) that back up each of the key pieces of information about her and, ideally, an indepth profile. Good guidance is contained at WP:BIO. If you wish to try to improve the page I will userfy it to an account to enable you to work on it. Finally, though, you also need to be aware of WP:COI. TerriersFan (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "I Jethrobot"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Prodding

Perhaps if you took the time manually to expand it or manually ask me to expand it instead of drilling a tag and generic warning I'd be more humane. I do not like having my talk page spammed with drilled messages. Nothing personal.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding Sources on Magistrates of England and Wales

Hi, TerrierFan

You asked for better sources on the article Magistrates of England and Wales are there any areas in particular you would like additional or replaced sourcing. Or any sources that you think are disputable. I would appreciate your input, if you can help by adding sources please do.

Kind regards --InExcelsis DeoTalk 20:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, You obviously have carried out a great deal of very valuable work; well done. I haven't been through all of the page, and in truth will not have time to do so, but right at the beginning of the first section 'History of the magistracy' the first two sentences are unsourced (the first source in this section is the 1361 Act) and there are other instances. It is a matter of comparing the text against the refs. In truth, the tag was a bit harsh so I will remove it and put inline cite tags as I find things.

Just an editing point; this page, because of its subject matter, needs to be written in British English. A number of terms e.g. 'offenses' and 'withing' are possible US spellings? Keep up the good work. TerriersFan (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought the History section might have been the problem, I have to admit that section does need expanding and further sourcing and I am currently working on it. Regarding the offenses I some how auto-replaced them with the US spelling and I shall correct them. PS: thanks for the kind words. Regards --InExcelsis DeoTalk 21:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now sourced the 'keepers of the peace' --InExcelsis DeoTalk 21:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a Tar Heel Born and Here Comes Carolina

You PRODded these, and I deleted them. Undeletion has now been requested on my talk page, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored them, and now notify you in case you wish to consider taking them to AfD, though before doing that I suggest you give the author some time to provide more sources. Incidentally, when PRODding an article, it is courteous to notify its author. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I notice that these have been redirected by the creator which is a fine solution. You are, of course, quite right about author notification; I suspect that real life intervened after prodding, but before notification, and I forgot! TerriersFan (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Praia da Luz

It's quite a big expansion, so I'm having a rest for now. You may wish to jump in (the water must be warm)... Rothorpe (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability: Schools

There is currently a long and important thread at User talk:Jimbo Wales #Notability of High Schools. This may finally be the opportunity we are hoping for to get any ambiguities cleared up regarding any perceived interpretations of (non)notability. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

School to save

A school popped up on my watchlist, want to tag team some improvements of North Gwinnett High School? Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I should be delighted; the problem is that the time I have spent in circular discussions is time I don't have to improve school, articles. TerriersFan (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Any way I have added 7 notable alumni which should help :-) TerriersFan (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the work! Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Schools: To save or not to save...

Hi TF. Do you think there is any chance of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (high schools) reaching a useful conclusion? It seems to be heading increasingly into a deep discussion about notability theory, with almost TLDR posts, but even after reading the entire talk page through a couple of times, I can't see anyone venturing any clear suggestions. I'm staying neutral, and as you have probably noticed, since the farce over schools on my RfA which some users also tried to use as a platform for debate on school notability, I have largely stopped commenting on school AfDs, and tagging school articles. That's not the way it's supposed to be. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I, also, don't really understand what is going on. The disappointing thing is that many of the participants have never sourced up a school article which surely is the way we develop the encyclopaedia? The key point that is being missed is that if we require instant compliance with WP:GNG then we will keep all the US public high schools and lose most of the schools in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and South America, areas of the world with no real tradition of putting material on the Internet - systemic bias writ large! TerriersFan (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Perhaps the time is ripe to have another go at a well worded, unambiguous central RfC, striking while the iron's hot. We must also avoid the occasional mass school AfDs by well meaning newbies who still haven't studied WP:DELETION. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that experience shows we will never get agreement; in the past whatever has been suggested has been too liberal for the deletionists and too restrictive for the inclusionists. Never the twain shall meet ...! In truth, I think that the notability policy is broken; now there is a controversial issue! TerriersFan (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Carteret Yeshiva

Even though I AfDed Carteret Yeshiva, but after hearing some many different opinions from more experienced users I'm not so sure anymore. Although from what I understand school are no inherently notable. But my opinion seems to be in minority here, I would appreciate if you can drop by add share your expert opinion with us. Thanks The Terminator p t c 19:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Leessang page deleted?

Hi, I see that you deleted the page on Leessang, and I am very confused as to how a band that is currently number one in Korea is not considered notable. This is a hip hop duo that has been around for years, currently has 3 songs in Korea's top 10, is ranked on the Billboards Kpop chart, is actually incredibly famous, and yet they don't have a Wiki page? 32 other wiki pages link to the Leessang page but it no longer exists. I admit I don't know all the Wiki rules, or how to make a page, or what all the jargon is, indeed, I just created an account to leave this message. I am biased as a fan of Leessang, but it seems bizarre to me that the page was deleted for notoriety purposes. Leessang is quite notable, and I think this page should be restored, or however this is handled here. Stoda (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, The page was deleted because it had a prod tag on it for more than 7 days. I have restored the page at User:Stoda/Leessang. If you can reliably source the claims then the page can be moved back to article space. Please see also WP:BAND. TerriersFan (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sober Living by the Sea

I dont' understand why this was deleted, the facility is well known and the center of a NIMBY issue that has implications that will reach far and wide. There is no shortage of references in the media. Is there anything I can do do get that page back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhurst08 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 8 September 2011

Hi, The page was deleted because it had a prod tag on it for more than 7 days. I have restored the page at User:Mhurst08/Sober Living by the Sea. If you can reliably source the page so that it meets WP:ORG then the page can be moved back to article space. However, please also see WP:COI. TerriersFan (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you take a look now and tell me what you think? There are 5 references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhurst08 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly better. There is a potential issue that I can see in that the sources deal with an aspect of this organisation's activities rather than the organisation as a whole. Having said that, I have no objection to your moving it back to article space where it could, however, be subject to an WP:AFD referral if any editor feels so inclined. TerriersFan (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks - let me add more about the organization and if you have any other suggestions I would like to hear them. Also, I assume I can find out how to move it back to articles space somewhere on here and I will look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhurst08 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 September 2011

Or, when you are ready, just ping me here and I will move the page for you. TerriersFan (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I am curious now how to move the page back into circulation. If you feel it is appropriate, you can put a link to the facility's website on the page. I think that's taboo for some reason - not sure why because if someone is reading about a company, it would seem logical to provide them a link to the company's website. Let me know, thanks.Mhurst08 (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. TerriersFan (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you TerriersFan!! Mhurst08 (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Open Movie Editor

The page Open Movie Editor was previously deleted. I missed the PROD, and don't know what the situation was then, but it seems at least at this point now it would pass WP:NOTE, as it has numerous third-party references: http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/openmovieeditor-and-blender-more-nle-delights http://www.ubuntugeek.com/open-movie-editor-a-simple-non-linear-video-editor.html http://ostatic.com/blog/open-movie-editor-linux-video-editor-with-plot-twists What would the process be for reinstating this page? Or should I just recreate it? Gnassar (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have restored the page to User:Gnassar/Open Movie Editor to enable you to work on it. Please be aware that when you move it back to article space that it will still be liable to a WP:AFD referral if an editor considers that it still doesn't meet WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Jenny Evans

Hey, you deleted my page. It was there because I am a free-lance journalist. I often do investigative work for which it's best to use a generic email, rather than a company-based one. It is therefore useful if people can Google my name and see that I am who I say I am and I do what I say I do. Last time I wrote some very minor stuff about some acting I did as a kid - it was uploaded about 5 years ago I think. I have now re-written something more detailed. Can you put me back up please?

Jen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.89.248 (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Restored. However, I have listed it for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenny Evans because you seem to fail WP:BIO. TerriersFan (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

View of deleted page

Per your close suggestion, I've opened a merge discussion here. Is there any way to give view access to the deleted page, for the editors discussing the merge? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have temporarily restored the content to User:Epeefleche/List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report by team to facilitate your merge discussions. Naturally, such content can only remain in user space whilst the merge discussions are actively underway. TerriersFan (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Perfect. Many thanks. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Mohisin Khan

On looking up Mohisin Khan, I was surprised to find that the article on him had been deleted. The deletion reference purports that by going to your contribution details I can find more details. However, despite numerous attempts, I have been unable to trace 5 June 2011, the cited date of deletion, in your contribution records (nothing between 31 May 2011 and 14 June 2011).

The reason cited for deletion appears to be lack of noteworthiness. Noteworthiness is obviously a somewhat subjective evaluation. It may be worth remarking that his case was cited in open court at a hearing by the Court Martial Appeal Court on 13 October, and at the hearing of his own case in 2004 the court's written judgement included a significant adverse criticism of RAF administrative procedures.

I look forward to reading your comments.

Mountdrayton (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I deleted this article on 6 June 2011 as an expired Prod - it had been proposed for deletion for seven days without objection - see WP:PROD. The concern was that it did not meet WP:BIO. If you consider that you can expand this article to meet that standard I will happily userfy it to you to enable you to work on it. TerriersFan (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. As someone who refers to Wikipedia only from time time, and then only on selected articles, it is not surprising that I was not aware of the article's proposed deletion. Given time, I could probably enhance the article to the required standard as one of the few cases of recent British war resistance by a volunteer member of the armed forces that has been the subject of judicial consideration and reporting, and will therefore be useful to people either active in that area or researching it. Mountdrayton (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have restored this article to User:Mountdrayton/Mohisin Khan to enable you to develop it. Naturally, the page cannot remain there indefinitely, only while it is being developed or until you decide that you don't wish to proceed with it. TerriersFan (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will deal with it as expeditiously as I can.

Mountdrayton (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wimbledon Community Stadium

Hello. I was trying to find out what Commons:File:Wimbledon Community Stadium.jpg is, and thought I should see if English Wikipedia had anything about it. You deleted Wimbledon Community Stadium and said "See talk page for details" in the deletion comment. But I have a problem because you also deleted the talk page, so I can't see the details. 90.229.129.137 (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

For accuracy, the 'see talk page' comment was part of the reason for the proposed deletion by the proposing editor, and that talk page said, in effect, that this was unsourced conjecture. A copy of the article can be seen at User:George Herschberg/sandbox. TerriersFan (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello TerriersFan! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Pocahontas

I think a redirect is appropriate under the guidelines - general notability guideline, primary criteria for institutions, and particularly common outcomes for educational institutions: Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability... are redirected to the appropriate school district page. In this particular case, it does not appear there was a "clear claim to notability." The school is or was a Blue Ribbon School, but that is an extremely common distinction that does not support a claim to notability. Apparent from that, there was a lawsuit to keep the school open, but this alone cannot support a claim to notability for the school; lawsuits over school zoning, closure, busing, student discipline, etc. are not all that uncommon. Moreover, to the extent that the lawsuit is worthy of mention, it would be on the Henrico County Public Schools article, because the lawsuit was filed against the school district and also involved a high school.

Thank you. --Neutrality^talk 01:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Guess I can't argue with that. Thanks for the explanation. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Kanatas Vasilis

Hi, TerriersFan, tudo bem? I draw your attention to the above candidate for deletion. Rothorpe (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am well thank you. I have moved this page to his correct name, Vasilis Kanatas. However, I cannot find a single reliable source. There is some coverage of his book but only on sales sites. He has an equivalent page on the Greek Wikipedia, here, but that page is also tagged for sources and the only references appear to be reviews of his book. Sorry, but I think that this one is a gonner. :-( TerriersFan (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I forgot to watch this page to see your response. No, I have no desire to see this article remaining at all. The Greek version has now been tagged for deletion, too. Rothorpe (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks

for deleting gundam-storm on wiki i did fall on A7

but i was thinking of pending delete

one of those days some member of the staff of gundam-storm will post up a page because i am still not good at posting pages on this site

got the hang of signing --Wjmdem (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Clearly wrong, misleading or without attribution

I have removed parts that are clearly wrong, misleading or without attribution that were inserted by boy(s) with a grudge about the school or written by journalists who cant be bothered to check facts. Do not reinsert. Wlmmcf (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing sourced content is disruptive editing whatever you might think of the journalists. TerriersFan (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandal

Can't believe that someone would redirect Duane Allman to Adolf Hitler. That's blasphemy! Drmies (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; there are some very unpleasant people out there. TerriersFan (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the warning on 202.153.223.226 talk page. I checked that user’s contributions and didn't find any that look legitimate. This person is doing nothing but vandalism. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Just to say thanks for reverting the vandalism by the IP on my user talk page. Oddbodz (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Malcom100

User:Malcolm100 had not been sufficiently warned at the time of the most recent incident. Based on the recent inactivity of the account, I had already declined indef-blocking this user and added a final warning instead. I thought indef was a bit hasty, but it's your call, either way is fine with me. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, because of your concern I have unblocked him as a courtesy. I would add, however, that our practice at AIV is that full warnings are not necessary for accounts clearly and solely created simply to vandalise or spam. Generally, it is considered better to block, rather than wait for more damage to be done and, if the person behind the account wants to contribute constructively, they can, in a few days, create a new account and make a clean start without the warnings on their record. I acknowledge, though, that your approach may differ and be equally, if not more so, valid. Thanks for your friendly and thoughtful approach. TerriersFan (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I normally do block clear vandals and spammers without warning before more damage is done, but since this was a newbie with only 3 (infrequent) edits, I thought it was borderline, so I wrote a non-templated warning instead. His only edits were to cream tea, which is now on my watch list. He'll get an indef if he does it again. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As requested

Link said: [[2]] Ian Cairns (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semiotics of the Salem witch trials

Hi. A few months ago you de-PRODed this article. I've now taken in to AfD so you may wish to add your thoughts to the discussion. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

User:199.219.144.51

Sure if you could go through all this IPs edits and if you find a couple of positive one than I will consider reducing it. Otherwise the IP has acquired 24 warning of the last couple of years.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi there- i saw you deleted a proposed deletion tag I put on an article (Power and Interest News Report) with a message that read "articles previously kept at AFD cannot be deleted by Prod" - so what now? I don;t think this article is notable. I read this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power and Interest News Report - but it has been more than 5 years since then , and in the meantime the organization seems to have disappeared. Jeff Song (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi; not a problem, simply go to WP:AFD and relist it. I expect that, if as seems likely the organisation has gone, this time it will get deleted pretty quickly!! TerriersFan (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

thank you. I'll give it a shot. Jeff Song (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

I believe neither 151.60.88.207 nor CanturinoAle were FPs, but I know too little about this long-term spammer group to block without warning (zzuzz knows more). A tricky LTA case. Materialscientist (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have reinstated the reports to enable a broader view. TerriersFan (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ban

Hello TerriersFan. I just wanted to let you know that you blocked this IP for 12 hours for harassment and personal attacks. The IP is User:Yourname, who is blocked indefinitely. All of his other accounts and IP addresses are blocked for a year (I believe a {{tor}} block, however I'm not sure.) Is it possible to change the block settings to a year? Thanks in advance. -- Luke (Talk) 03:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your courteous approach. The short block is appropriate for the burst of unpleasantness you have helpfully identified. I will be around when his block expires and if he resumes then he will get a much longer block. However, lengthy blocks because of socking issues are best imposed at WP:SPI where there are editors with checkuser tools that I don't have. At AIV we can only deal with the symptoms of such socking activities which is why SPI is the better forum. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. -- Luke (Talk) 03:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I see that User:Materialscientist has now blocked the IP for 1 year so I guess that resolves matters! TerriersFan (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

AIV bot

Seems to be commenting, but not cleaning up. Is there a way to force it to restart? --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Not by us, I'm afraid. However, I have reported it to its owner for falling down on the job. :-) TerriersFan (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. Cheers! --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope, you're wrong and let me tell you why

Because there are already more than 200 articles in the category "Fictional dogs" and the spam of redirects only causes a tl;dr reaction from anyone who sees it. Just take a look at it.

Now, I'm going to show you how we do it properly with video game characters. If you look at, for example, the category "Female video game characters" you will find just not only a good articles (meaning only the characters proven to be actually notable, and properly referenced - the total of 79 of them at the time) but also no spam of redirects - in which case it would be many hundreds, even thousands of them! But we don't do this, and for a very good reason: it makes a so much better readibility and organization. We also don't do it with all the other video game-related articles of all kinds (most things are merged to the lists or their game articles, and very many games were not notable at all).

And you might notice there's no video game articles, for the simple reason very few fictional dogs are actually notable (it would be no more than about 20 I think, in all the fiction, excluding myths and legends). As such, most of existing articles in "Fictional dogs" should be redirected for having no actual notability (and remember the character notability is not inherited from the works and has to be estabilished independently). The fans of fictional dogs (you?) should get it well under the limit of 200, and keep it there. A sample example of such an article where nothing at all ever validated its existance: Foo-Foo, or Goliath (fictional dog) - and there's a plenty of articles like that. Now, examples of a notable fictional dog: Lassie, Scooby-Doo (character), Pluto (Disney) - but there are a very few dogs like that. And even then, Scooby-Doo is also very badly written and has only 3 references (which means even it is only borderline), while Pluto and Lassie both also have no reception/cultural impact section and only less than 10 references each (which would be very poor for the vg characters' standards, as usually it's dozens of refs).

But what exactly are our standards at vg? Well, for example: there was a big and long discussion regarding the notability of Lili (Tekken), even after she had more than 20 references etc., she was still -almost- merged back again - the issue was whether of not she was actually notable enough yet (mostly because apparently she didn't make to any "top 10"-type list yet).

So, now: 1) revert all of these misguided reverts of yours, 2) go and work to redirect this sad mass of unnotable fictional dogs, and finally: 3) and then help to rewrite the articles on the fictional dogs there are notable. Most of them are not. But do not spam distracting redirects in categories.

In the meantime, I'll work to make an article for Dogmeat from Fallout (I'm pretty sure I can find enough sources and notability refs for it). Woof. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this informative message. Actually, I have no interest in dogs, fictional or otherwise. This topic came to my attention because of your mass removal of categories. Categories, as with redirects, are simply search aids and if there is something worthwhile at the target then there is no reason why the redirect should not be categorised. If you consider that there is nothing worthwhile at the target then the better way forward would be to take the redirect to WP:RFD and seek deletion rather than removing the category. TerriersFan (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought terrier is a type of dog.

Nope, it's just distracting ("tl;dr", especially because of very distracting italics) anyone who comes to search for valid content (the content that is notable - see W:N to learn about how important this "notability" thing is for Wikipedia). Maybe read again what I wrote to you above, about the system used for video game characters for years, if you still don't understand (no, not a single redirected vg char is spamming categories, and there are hundreds if not thousands of these former articles). And no, I don't want to "seek deletion" of any of this, as I already told you too. Because there's no reason whatsoever as a proper redirect is just fine. It just needs to be properly done.

Or maybe if you don't really don't understand: there are MILLIONS of fictional characters in all kinds of media, would you support an action to list them all in all Wikipedia categories so it would be "helpful" for the readers? If something is not notable for Wikipedia, then it's not notable for Wikipedia, period. I too have some un-notable favourite characters but I don't spam them in the categories, or lists for that matter.

And so now go and do revert yourself. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Having read the article several times I can't help thinking it is missing an important piece of information regarding the case.

It is agreed by all who know this case that the official police files (including police statements by all the relevant people) are available to read by all. They are found at www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk . Why is this not included in the article?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillyspot (talk • contribs) 19:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for highlighting this resource. I have added it at Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Suspension of the official investigation, reference 148. TerriersFan (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It is universally used by all. xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillyspot (talk • contribs) 19:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And so I restored Dogmeat

Did you revert your reverts on the unnatotable fictional dogs spamming the various lists, yet? --194.145.185.229 (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As I explained above, they are fine. TerriersFan (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

IP needs blocking,,,

User:184.44.129.253 just came off a 31 hour block, and has done nothing constructive save wikilink a few things. All other edits are vandalism. Could you reblock the IP? Considering the tone of his responses, he's fully aware of what he is doing. MSJapan (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for sharing your concern. However, I have found a couple of unreverted edits recently that look constructive. OTOH I agree that several have also been negative. Consequently, I have add a level 3 warning. At the moment, I don't think the activity warrants a further block but more clear vandalism may well justify blocking. If you are still concerned I would have no problem if you took this to WP:AIV since another admin might view things differently. TerriersFan (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I will further this, considering I came across a reference at an AfD discussion that pointed me here, and it seems to indicate this is a IP-hopping long-term disruptive editor. MSJapan (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Progressive approach such as...? The IP makes nonsensical comments (just look at the contribs), is and has been warned by several editors, has been blocked twice, lied in the process of trying to get unblocked, and has done nothing of any substantial value to the encyclopedia except waste people's time. One more or less WL in an article is negligible, frankly, considering the volume of edits. I fail to see redeemable value here, especially since the user does not wish to register an account. MSJapan (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

If this is an IP hopping editor then long-term blocking would simply mean that he moves to another IP address leaving this IP blocked to the detriment of occasional editors who wish to be constructive. TerriersFan (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to be too much of an I told you so, but the school IP template was fake; it's a BellSouth IP, likely from a phone, as that would explain the egregious writing from this user. MSJapan (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Good detective work; well done! TerriersFan (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Enigma (Singer)

For your attention. Season's greetings. Rothorpe (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing any notability, either. Added prod blp. Also Take 1. Merry Christmas. TerriersFan (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

And Capital Records has yet to issue any records, as far as I can see. Rothorpe (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's greetings!

All the best for the time of the year TF! On another note, over 100 have appeared on the list in the past 2 days. They'll nearly all be R of course, and this is a huge waste of time of editors' productivity, and I'm worried if the rest of the 49,900 are going to be listed too. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you! I must confess to not being keen on such mass nominations at this time of year when fewer editors are about. Nominating in bulk also makes it harder to spot and source up those that are notable. Four high schools have been slipped in (one closed but three are still live - Albatross Grammar School‎, Islamic School, Irbid and Misr American College‎. TerriersFan (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Happy new year!
	We wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 20:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Farri Agri

Hi, i found that you deleted the article Syaffarizal Mursalin Agri, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_September_19#Syaffarizal_Mursalin_Agri. The main reason is no evidence that the player has played in fully professional league. He play for Al Khor in Qatar Star League which is fully professional league. Now I find the evidence, see this. So should this article keep? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annas86 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you may now comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 26#Syaffarizal Mursalin Agri. TerriersFan (talk)

Redirects etc

Of the 100 or so primary schools that were mass proposed for deletion over the holiday period, roughly half are being redirected and half are being deleted, and some are apparently being deleted without properly evaluating the consensus. Not only is it contrary to any effort to adhere to consistency in the way policies, guidelines, or precedents are applied throughout the encyclopedia, but such arbitrary voting and closing by those who are not aware of the policies, guidelines, and precedents, does not accord equal debate to all schools that are proposed for deletion at AfD. The situation is now getting ridiculous and a ruling is urgently required one way or another that we can all follow and save unnecessary bureaucracy. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Excessive Vandalism from 216.243.212.216

We have seen more malicious activity from IP address 216.243.212.216. Could you block this?

Thanks, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 21:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for drawing my attention to this. The IP has been given a final warning but there has been no vandalism since. If there is further vandalism, now he has been suitably warned, then I will block him. TerriersFan (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Jon Driver

Thanks for the heads up, though it looks like things settled down before I got over there. Much appreciated. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

.As a novice Wikipaedia user I'm not sure whether I'm commenting in the right place. At one point yesterday the suicide references had gone from the article on my brother Jon as I had requested, and I thought that humanity had prevailed. But the reference is back, put in again by someone who didn't know him and should have no interest in the manner of his death. Small children, elderly parents and close family members are howling with grief over this, its grotesque that no consideration is being given to their wishes. How would you feel if it was your father or son that people were reading about? Please, please help to have this detail removed, it has no relevance to his academic career which should be the thing of interest to Wiki audience. Shumphreys (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)