User talk:Lear's Fool/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Organ Pipes National Park

The approval tick needs correction, since you have cleared the Alt 1 hook. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 03:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, used the wrong template. It's fixed now.  -- Lear's Fool 03:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for readding that

Although its wouldn't have made a difference since this isn't about votes but arguments and that comment lacked any material, I didn't mean to delete it when I replied to the Apple thing. Thanks for readding. :) _WikiMan^One 07:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem!  -- Lear's Fool 07:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi! Since you were kind enough to help me out earlier, and since no good deed goes unpunished, would you mind if I wasted your time with another question? A user seems to have created a ton of articles (Special:Contributions/Inwind) on individual rowers. Some of them have won olympic medals, but as a team, and I haven't found any real evidence of notability on a personal level for most of them (although an article for a team would make sense). My two questions are a) would these be reasonable to nominate for deletion and b) since they are all basically the same situation, if I were to nominate them would I have to do them one by one individually? Thanks so much!--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, some of them may actually be deserving of their own article, but for the rest my question applies.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What you've come across is one of the more controversial areas of our notability guidelines: WP:ATHLETE, which essentially states that sportspeople who have competed at the highest level (eg the Olympics or a professional league) are notable. This can get controversial because (as opposed to the general notability guideline and other guidelines), it makes no reference to coverage in independent, reliable sources, which is required for an article. Things get tricky when an individual meets WP:ATHLETE, but has not received independent coverage in reliable sources. In this case, however, the articles about the rowers all cite an apparently reliable source that verifies that they have competed in the Olympics (and have won medals), and so they meet the relevant notability guideline. As such, they should probably not be nominated for deletion. If (hypothetically) this weren't the case, then it would be appropriate to nominate them all together (rather than one at a time), since they are all extremely similar.  -- Lear's Fool 04:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

Hey, I saw your edits at DYK and clicked over to your user page and was impressed. Have you considering applying to become a Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors? It is a great way to help college students become more familiar with Wikipedia, and make them good long term contributers! Sadads (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Laurence Sheil

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hiya

Was wondering if you'd be up for a collaboration (perhaps to FA) some time. I've been looking to do a non-motorsport article at some point in my life, and while I'm essentially ignorant of anything else, I love research and am a bit of a prose junkie. Apterygial 23:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You found me :). I've only just put together my first GA (John O'Reily), so I don't really have much (or any) experience of what an FA takes. I'm working on getting Helen Mayo to GA (eventually), but the sourcing isn't good enough for an FA. Have you got any ideas what you'd be interested in?  -- Lear's Fool 01:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I know the processes fairly well, and will go through it again soon. I'd love to do a Australian history article, anything with b&w photos and no BLP issues. I had a crazy idea last year to do James Scullin, beside Holt Australia's unluckiest PM... Apterygial 01:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Australian bios are good. Not sure if you've stumbled upon Trove, but I've found it an excellent aid for such articles. Scullin looks really interesting, although I'm not sure how much experience you've had with articles to do with the Aussie politics WikiProject. In my experience, seemingly uncontroversial and good-faith changes can sometimes become bogged down in tedious consensus building. I don't imagine it's as bad for the historical articles, and it isn't insurmountable, but I could see it being a little bit trickier than perhaps you'd hope. I've thought about tackling some Adelaide graduates. Douglas Mawson is an article of high importance, and should have a wealth of sources (and public domain images) available. The Braggs (William Lawrence and William Henry) are the only father-son team to win a Nobel Prize together. I'm not sure whether any of those interest you.  -- Lear's Fool 02:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I suspected politics articles would be driven by politics. I'd love to have a crack at Mawson's article. I've always harboured a faint interest and it is something which deserves to be in a much better condition than it is. I have used Trove; looking for historic motorsport books which seem to be exceptionally rare. Apterygial 03:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so should we give Mawson a go? There's a couple of bios at the Barr Smith.  -- Lear's Fool 09:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. If we're serious, we should probably have a planning session. Apterygial 10:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I'll send you a message on facebook.  -- Lear's Fool _mobile 08:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that Shackleton, Scott and Nansen are already FAs. Apterygial 10:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Created, with a basic outline. Apterygial 09:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: Deletion of Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian protests

Conversation started on User talk:The Egyptian Liberal, but was copied here   -- Lear's Fool 08:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! It appears that you are trying to nominate Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian protests for deletion. Would you like some help? You have added the Proposed deletion (PROD) template to the page, but I'm afraid I've removed it, since PROD is designed for uncontroversial deletions. You have also nominated it on the page of an unrelated deletion discussion. Can I suggest you tell me what you want to do, and I help you with the technical stuff?  -- Lear's Fool 07:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Its the first time I do something like this. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've redirected the timeline back to the main article. I agree that it shouldn't have been split like that, but a redirect is all that's needed.  -- Lear's Fool 07:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have another favor to ask. The user 94.246.150.68 has been disrespectful to many users who are working on the article and forcing his opinion on some us by editing without consensus. Is there a way of of stopping him from editing the article? we have tried talking to him, but with no result. Sometimes he very constructive but overall is he is a pain to work with. You can look at the talk page if you dont believe me. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed the talkpage, and I do not see this contributor's conduct as being sufficiently problematic to warrant administrator intervention (if that's what you were asking). They have occasionally been perhaps too forceful in their language, but I feel many of his/her points are quite reasonable. I will continue to keep an eye on the article, but at this point I feel everyone is contributing in good faith.  -- Lear's Fool 08:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That's sounds fair and reasonable. I have another favor to ask and this very important. This Template to be under full protection. we have had problem regarding the death table (I know, horrible name) in the article due to Vandalism. Can you do help? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree with transcluding a protected version of the table onto the page. I cannot see sufficient vandalism of the table to justify this. If the whole page needs to be protected then it should be, but protection of the table alone (especially given how controversial it has been) should be avoided.  -- Lear's Fool 09:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Graphic images

• File:Egypt Uprising solidarity Melbourne protest, 4 February 2011.png
• File:Khaled Mohamed Saeed Before and after.png
• File:Khalid-Saeed.png

I have uploaded those pictures. The images are extremely graphic (warning: click link at your own discretion) of a dead body, showing the distorted face of an apparent torture victim. I wonder how can I use them without offending anyone (example, kids)? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for taking so long to respond! These images are quite graphic, but we have a policy of not censoring Wikipedia because of graphic or offensive content (there are worse images and media in other articles). The issue with these images is not so much how graphic they are, but their neutrality. I would want some sort of reliable source backing up the story of what has happened to this man, and it is important not to use them in such a way as to give the article a point of view. These are all discussions that are probably better had at the article's talkpage, though.  -- Lear's Fool 23:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Pusa Call

V2VG2G (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Hi Lear's Fool,

This message is in referance to the article "Pusa Call", which has been deleted just in the recent times. Though, I am happy that you all experianced people have noticed this article. But, it seems, you have ignored the content which was written in it.

I understand, that the particular article might be lacking in satisfying references. But, if you have noticed in the article itself, it clearly mentions that this subject is a ban in the institute, hence it is impossible to get it listed in the institute's official website. But otherwise, I have tried to incorporate the remix version(A youtube video) and a modified version of the same.

Apart from that, if you look at the history of people who have watched this article in such a small span of its existence, can be an indirect reference indicating its popularity. Unlike the Hoax/Fake articles.

As I am a new wikipedian, I would like to mention that I am still in the process of learning the wikipedia and working for the same. It is my humble request to you all, to please reconsider its formation at wikipedia again. And believe me, it is not a hoax article at all. I will try my level best to incorporate more and more relevant references and links to this particular article in the near future.

thanking you. V2VG2G

Hello V2VG2G, and welcome to Wikipedia! Your article was deleted through a deletion discussion, and my job as an administrator was to review the discussion about Pusa Call to see whether there was a consensus to delete it. This means that, although I was the one who deleted the article, I don't necessarily agree with or endorse the reasons given at the discussion. However, whether or not it was a hoax (and I feel that it probably wasn't), the article failed to demonstrate why it should be considered sufficiently notable for inclusion here. In fact, given that we require all our content to be referenced to reliable sources, the article as it stood could not be verified, which is essential. To be included in Wikipedia, the article must have significant coverage from reliable sources that are independant of the subject. I'm afraid the Pusa Call does not have this, and so cannot be included at this time.

If you would like, I can e-mail a copy of the article to you, or restore it as a subpage of your userpage. If you would like me to e-mail it to you don't post your e-mail address here, because this is a public page. I will send the e-mail to the address you have registered with your account. Please let me know if you have any more questions!  -- Lear's Fool 23:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

V2VG2G (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks for showing concerns, It would be pleasing if you can send the copy of the article to my e-mail mentioned with wiki.

I will certainly try to include as many references as I can, to support the articles relibility on asap basis.

Also, I would be obliged if you can help me in guiding- How can I learn more about Wiki formatting as I am very new to Wiki, and whatever posts that I have added/edited till now are just by observing the pattern of the existing articles only.

I have e-mailed you the deleted copy, although I should warn you that if you recreate the article, it will almost certainly be deleted again for the same reasons as before. Regarding formatting, copying from articles is a good way of doing it. When I was learning, I also used the cheatsheet, which lists the ways to format different types of text. Finally, when it comes to signing your posts with ~~~~, this should typically be done at the end of posts, rather than at the beginning. I hope this helps!  -- Lear's Fool 00:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie-Laure Sauty de Chalon

I take my bow. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Beats by Dr. Dre

I thought this article was only promoting the product, which does not embody the Wikipedia idea of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivekdudee (talk • contribs) 05:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, the article may appear to give quite a positive take on the product, but the G11 speedy deletion criterion is reserved for unambiguously promotional articles, where the article would have to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopaedic. I do not feel that this article meets this criterion. If you are concerned about the article's tone, you should consider being bold and fixing it yourself.  -- Lear's Fool 06:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with LF above. I might also mention that your little instance of self-important promotion (here) is not only in violation of WP:IAI as it is presumably not true, but if it were - it then violates WP:COI, WP:PROMO and WP:AUTO. Either way, this is a practice that you should be sure to avoid in the future. Aside from that - while the article has read in the past more like an advert due to the endless listing of associated artists and product display - there is a lot of non-promo material contained within the article. There is company and product history and development, some technical information (limited due to the amount of rather limited info there is available to the general public), and plenty of other non-promo material. The article is also fairly new, and its quality will improve as time goes on and more information and resources become available. Please use better discretion when nominating articles for deletion in the future - and do so only after looking at the entire article and even working with other editors in collaboration within the talk pages to eliminate areas of promotional concern. Thanks Srobak (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Obsessive psychogeography

Thank you. You are quite right, and my edits were mistaken. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem.  -- Lear's Fool 09:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Danke. That could have gone badly.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I've nearly made that mistake.  -- Lear's Fool 09:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Alan Bass

No, this should have been left as a speedy for spamming. It is clearly written by the author as self-promotion; he also wrote a spam article about a book he wrote. The two articles went hand-in-hand. The other was speedy-deleted, as it should have been. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 12:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Autobiographical articles are not automatically spam. Unlike the article on the book (which was unambiguously promotional), this article is a factual discussion of the subject, does not prominently feature promotion of the subject, and so does not meet G11. Of course I agree with you that the article should be deleted (and that the 7 day waiting period is probably excessive in this case), but the CSD are narrow for good reason, and you will occasionally get articles such as these that should definitely be deleted, but don't fit the criteria.  -- Lear's Fool 12:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, Let's see how this goes. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, he dePRODded it. Thanks for your vote on the AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Way out of line closure

Your closure of the deletion discussion regarding Howard C. Reiche was WAY out of line. Closing a discussion barely 8 hours after it began is ridiculous. I did not even get the chance to do any research to see if he is notable, but there was at least a claim to notability. I ask that you reopen the discussion and let the process complete itself in full rather than short circuiting it.--TM 14:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's my first huge mistake as an admin. So sorry, I thought the discussion had already expired. I'm not sure how I came to that conclusion. Again, I'm really sorry.  -- Lear's Fool 03:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, did I miss something? The AfD was opened on 06:50, 12 February 2011, and it's now the 20th. It's run for 8 days now. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

lol, what a mess. You're right, it was, but the nomination statement was added to in a way that made me think it had only been open for 6 hours. I'll revert my revert!  -- Lear's Fool 03:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for making a mess of the nomination statement. It was my fault all this got started... I added an update to the nomination section 7 days after the initial nomination. So I don't make the same mistake again, should I have added the update and where would have been the best place to have put it? Bgwhite (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hardly, it was my fault for not looking closer the second time 'round. Anyway, no harm done.  -- Lear's Fool 08:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

AfD Afnix

I was studying the Afnix history when I noticed that Afnix (programming language) had gone red, i.e., WP:Articles for deletion/Afnix (programming language) had been closed with a "delete".  I question this decision, since AfD decisions should be based on policy.

There were only two positions favoring deletion, plus the nominator.  As shown by the discussion, the nominator incorrectly expressed that obscurity was a reason for deletion; also, he/she did not identify a policy.  A late position, that was done after the 7-day time for closing the discussion, doesn't mention notability policy, instead erroneously citing content policy; for example, "The core policy Wikipedia:Verifiability mandates deletion".  As I replied, WP:V and WP:BURDEN are content policy, not notability policy.

The one remaining position used the techniques of (1) repeating of arguments and (2) Wikipedia:The Last Word, neither of which advances the discussion.  The phrase "Ghits and GNEWS" was repeated five times, even though WP:GHITS is a known fallacy.  IMO there is exactly one substantive statement that was put forward in defense of deletion, this being the algorithm that analyzed the 418 GHits in an effort to determine that none were substantive, "The number of Ghits is really not that hard to review if one gets past the "index of/XXX", "downloads", and other items such as "List of Programming Languages"."  Yet if you look at the improvements to the article that occurred during the AfD, you will see that this reviewer's algorithm missed the fact that Afnix is part of the [FreeBSD] download.  In short, the reviewer's algorithm was flawed.

Your concluding statement incorrectly states that, "...arguments put forward by those favouring deletion (that the article lacks [[WP:GNG..."—when no such WP:GNG position was asserted.  Your concluding statement does nothing to discourage the misapplication of content policy that said, "In addition the author has been notified and has the [ [ WP:BURDEN | burden ] ] of providing support for the article. If this does not happen in 7 days after the creation of the AfD the article will most likely be deleted."  Nor does your concluding statement do anything to encourage the community consensus in WP:Guide to deletion.

In summary, the position stands that, "...I saw many web pages with 'afnix' in the URL, each of these web pages documents that 'afnix' has been noticed."  This is a notability statement that is trivial to verify.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 06:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must strongly disagree with both your analysis of the AfD and your views on the relationship between WP:Verifiability and deletion. The argument given by those !voting to delete was essentially that there were no sources to indicate notability, or to even verify the content of the article. This is certainly grounds for deletion, and it was not effectively refuted by those (including yourself) arguing for the article to be kept. Your argument that the word "afnix" is in many URLs does nothing to refute this, and does not establish notability under any current guideline. Furthermore, I'm afraid your position that a lack of reliable sources is not grounds for deletion is mistaken: reliable sources form the foundation of our notability guidelines, and unverifiability is a common grounds for deletion.  -- Lear's Fool 07:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the gap between our two positions is unreasonably large.  I don't know what else to say at this time.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Page you deleted

Hi,

I wish you had contacted me before you deleted my work at this URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Hoover

I had permission from Mr Hoover to use that content. Is there a way for you to replace it? I would appreciate that so much. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHooverNC (talk • contribs) 18:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for the deletion, but I'm afraid we generally cannot accept material copied directly from other websites. Even if you have the permission of the website creator, content on Wikipedia must be available under the CC-BY-SA licence, which requires more than just permission for you to use it. More information can be found at Wikipedia:Copy-paste. If you would still like to write the article, it would be best if you re-wrote it from scratch, in your own words, citing reliable sources for all information. You should also be aware that if Mr Hoover does not meet the notability guidelines for musicians, it is likely that the article will be deleted. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any more questions.  -- Lear's Fool 13:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

NLS / Student Factional organisations redirected to NUS

Hi

Regarding your redirect of Student organisations which comprise the major faction within NUS, I believe these are unwarrented and in fact confusing for readers. These are independant organisations which attend NUS, similar to other political parties comprising members of a parliament. To redirect The Greens to 'Australian parliament' would be quite misleading, as is this. The only remaining argument is that it is difficult to reference... this is indeed a problem, but one which does not have 'redirect to some random somewhat connected group' as the solution. The factions have a long and complicated past, which warant their own page. The inaccuracies on one of these pages will logically still be present on the NUS#factions page too. I see very little reasoning behind such a move, and would not be surprised to see if you and the person supporting the move were involved in the matter somehow. I will change it unless a proper reason can be given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobsta (talk • contribs) 06:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have responded on the NUS talkpage.  -- Lear's Fool 13:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Amherst High School (Wisconsin)

i am contacting thee in regardance to the deletion of my page about amherst high school. i dont understand what was wrong. i am aware the page wasnt finished but i was planning on adding to it, to complete it. i ask you to reconsider trying to delete this pageSankeyclass (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The page you created constituted obvious vandalism and will not be restored. Any further disruptive editing will result in you being blocked.  -- Lear's Fool 03:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Turner And The German Grail

I was considering a speedy delete on Samuel Turner And The German Grail as it appears from googling to be a home-made film on YouTube. I couldn't find what I thought might be the right template for this on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. I considered {db-web} but was unsure whether this applied to film. Could you advise, and review this one for me please? Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You're correct, it is borderline. I was actually initially unsure (I seconded the PROD you added), but I've speedily deleted it under {{db-web}} now, since it was only released online. It's sometimes worth checking the page logs, as in this case the article was deleted twice before by two different administrators.  -- Lear's Fool 00:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright

Hi. Could you please check the image copyright statuses at 1906 French Grand Prix for me? They all (apart from the top image in Background) come from the same source, which marks them as "© Renault communication". Several are also present at the LAT Archive, which marks them as being published in Autocar (a British magazine), 1906. From my understanding, this means they were published collectively (rather than under a specific author) which could mean they are in PD in France and the US. Thanks heaps, Apterygial 03:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've scanned over all the relevant guidelines I can find, and the only way I could see it being a problem is if the publisher was an individual, and was not in fact unknown. If you wanted to be really safe, you'd probably want to look at the initial publication (which I suppose would be in Autocar), but a brief search on Google seems to suggest that archives from 1906 would be a little tricky to access. It's worth noting that (as I understand it) if the images were taken in France, but first published in the UK, they would need to be in the public domain under UK intellectual property law. Australian law is so much simpler, because the expiry is from the date the image was taken, which is much easier to determine then the death of the image's creator.  -- Lear's Fool 13:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll see how the images are dealt with at FAC. One more question (since you seem to know what you're talking about). I've been doing a bit of writing to complement the Mawson research, tackling his air-tractor sledge. As part of that, I've been looking at images on Trove. My understanding is that those photos taken during the AAE (and that one from the Advertiser) are in the public domain in Australia because they were taken prior to 1955, but every library website says that you need permission from them to redistribute it. Does that hold any water, or can I just go ahead and put them on Commons? Apterygial 12:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, they've got no rights to them. I think they might just be trying to make some money out of a resource they own, but the images are in the public domain.  -- Lear's Fool 12:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Danke. Apterygial 13:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

William K. Boone

I caused you pain and grief before, so I thought I'd cause some more. I came across William K. Boone's article. At the top of the article it says it has been deleted twice before, the last time being Sept. 2010. The current article was created in Sept. 2010. I believe that is grounds for speedy delete or should I bring it up for regular deletion?
I've been using AWB to fix problems from a automatically generated list, so I read alot of articles, and notice some that could be deleted. It is very scary how many articles there are from around the world about people disappearing after taken into custody. Bgwhite (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must still maintain that that previous confusion was entirely my fault :). I can't see where on the article it indicates it has been deleted before. The page log shows no record of deletion. If an article has been previously deleted per a deletion discussion, and is then recreated without substantially dealing with the reasons it was deleted before, it is eligible for speedy deletion under the G4 criterion, but I can't see that being the case here. This article looks as though it is in need of a look over, but I'm pretty tired at the moment, so I'll leave it for the morning (my time, UTC+10:30) and have a proper look then. I hope this helps, let me know if it hasn't.  -- Lear's Fool 13:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it would have helped if I gave one piece of crucial information... Spanish. At the top of the article it says "" So, it was deleted in the spanish edition in Sept 2010 and recreated in the english edition the same month. Looking at logs on the spanish site and using google translate, it appears this was deleted. The same editor of the deleted ones is the same editor of the english one. Also the editor is William Boone's grandson.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgwhite (talk • contribs) 22:31, February 26 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. It isn't eligible for speedy deletion here because of its deletion there, but Boone doesn't appear to meet the relevant notability criteria. I'll have to put off having a look at it for a few hours, but I'll see what I can do tonight.  -- Lear's Fool 04:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Done.  -- Lear's Fool 12:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

An AfD

Hi! As the closing admin of the previous AfD, I felt it was right to inform you that, since my bold redirect was reverted, I've re-nominated the article. I mostly did this because theres quite frankly no other way I'd feel comfortable saying there was consensus to redirect. If this was the wrong move, please feel free to correct me. Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I may have been preemptive, although my previous interaction with the editor indicated that he would most likely refuse to follow the notability guidelines.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I must say that I disagree with this nomination. The article should not be deleted: songs that do not meet the relevant notability guideline should generally be merged into the artist's discography or the article on the album. Per the "bold, revert, discuss" cycle, the correct response to somebody reverting your bold edit is to discuss it and try to form a consensus. If I were in your position, I would start a discussion on Talk:Howling Bells discography about how to deal with this.  -- Lear's Fool 02:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. It's just that my previous discussion in regards to the notability for songs ended with him saying he was just going to keep making them, and the ones that previously ended in merge had their merge decisions removed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. So some of the others were nominated for deletion and had consensus for merge, but the author simply undid the merger or removed the tag. Ugh, what a mess. Okay. Can I ask you to do something for me to make this easier? I'd like for you to start a new section on Talk:Howling Bells discography, and in this discussion list all of the articles you nominated for deletion, and the outcomes of each of the discussions. We'll go from there, but you're correct: if those articles were closed as merge, the author cannot simply ignore the consensus. Would you be able to do that for me?  -- Lear's Fool 02:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd absolutely love for you to, I'm doing a lot of stuff right now and so, while I can edit Wikipedia, I feel like I would rush something important and not get it done well. It's actually an interesting conundrum--the editor has made some really well written and informative articles off of totally non-notable songs (using data that one can find on basically any song). While a merge makes sense, there's no real good way to merge such a massive amount of information into the discography article without screwing something up with undue. Plus I suck at merges. I may back off the whole issue for today and come back tomorrow, but you're more than welcome to take over, haha. And once again, please let me know if you feel I've done something wrong or misinterpreted something; I realize I'm sleep-deprived, and I'd rather be wrong and corrected than not learn from my errors. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Reading this over again, I realized my reply made it sound like I was asking you to do what you asked of me. I didn't mean it that way, I just wrote it oddly. But either way, I'm backing out of this whole issue, it's not worth the fuss.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Warnings and Tony Crook

I would just like to make the observation that you are extremely heavey handed and cleary abuse your power. I did one edit I believe to be constructive and even though I'm a fairly new user, you give me a LEVEL 4 WARNING? Why???144.136.101.108 (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no way you considered this edit constructive. You received that warning because further disruptive editing such as this will get you blocked.  -- Lear's Fool 12:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, excuse me, am I not entitled to disagree with you. Yes I do believe it was constructive. And can you clarify why I received a LEVEL 4 warning for it?144.136.101.108 (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Your edit was unequivocally unconstructive, and if you do it again, you will be blocked. That is why you received a final warning.  -- Lear's Fool 12:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

How can my own article get deleted?

I am just trying to get Romana Javitz' name on Wikipedia and then link to the legitimate article which I wrote. What's the problem here?

http://www.nypl.org/locations/tid/45/node/62019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atron888 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Atron, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm afraid there are a couple of difficulties here. Firstly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not meant to be a vehicle for the promotion of individuals or ideas. We have extensive notability guidelines that indicate which topics can be included, and it appears that Javitz fails to meet them. Secondly, you should avoid editing in areas where you have a conflict of interest, since it is important for encyclopaedic articles that they be neutral, and this could give the impression you are promoting someone or something. Finally, whenever you edit a page, if you scroll down to the bottom, just near the "save page" button, it says "Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites – only public domain resources can be copied without permission." The article you wrote was copied an pasted from the copyrighted article you refer to above, and so constitutes a copyright violation. Please see WP:Copy-paste for more details on this, and feel free to let me know if you have any more questions.  -- Lear's Fool 00:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: March 2011

Oh, that's quaint. They moved the move tab! I see it now, though, in the drop down menu between the Star and Search. Only item in the drop down menu. Apologies. Must have spent too much time with that buggery the old Wikia skins (or maybe Wikipedia has reskinned since last I bothered to really edit here). Again, apologies for the copy pasta move. Thankfully, being a disambig, I doubt the history will be too bothered by it all.

--Rotaretilbo (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No-Consensus Closure

Hi. You no-consensus closed four of my articles today, Wishing Stone; Setting Sun; Broken Bones; and Digital Hearts. I would like to know more about the second sentence, "However, a bold redirect to Howling Bells discography would not require a renomination". What does this mean, and how can I get them back? Thanks. mattchewbaca (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussions were closed as no consensus because of a lack of participants in the discussions. However, the arguments expressed by the two participants indicated that they did not feel the songs individually met our notability guideline for songs, and thus that the article should be redirected to Howling Bells discography. I noted in my closing rationale, that if an editor feels an article should be redirected into another, they can be bold and simply redirect it themselves. Yaksar (talk · contribs), the editor who nominated the songs for deletion, did this. If you disagree with the redirections, you should follow the "bold, revert, discuss" cycle: undo Yaksar's redirects and discuss them on an appropriate talkpage (perhaps Talk:Howling Bells discography). Note that I don't really have an opinion on it, I was just closing the deletion discussion. Please feel free to let me know if you want any more help or advice with this process. Also, can I just add that I love your username?  -- Lear's Fool 00:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, Thanks, somebody used to not be able to say my name matthew and instead would call me mattchew ;D so I decided to add chewbaca into the mix :) I took your advice and read about bold, revert, discuss and undid Yaksar (talk · contribs)'s redirect and within 2 minutes he nominated it for deletion again! I don't know if he doesn't like me or what? I'm not going to undo the other three articles because he's just going to nominate it again. Can you give your opinion on what to do with my articles? I have read a lot of song articles on wikipedia that are almost a blank page and they get to stay. I put a lot of effort into mine and think they are good. mattchewbaca (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. As you see below, I'm also dealing with Yaksar here, so I'll keep looking over this situation. Yaksar nominated a number of the articles for deletion, and some of those deletion discussions were closed with a consensus to merge them into the discography, and some were closed with no consensus. Once a deletion discussion has reached a consensus, I'm afraid you cannot simply ignore it (as you have done) and remove the merge templates. Anyway, this has all gotten a little messy, so what I'm proposing is that we list all the articles in question at Talk:Howling Bells discography and go from there.  -- Lear's Fool 02:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I discussed it with King of Hearts (talk · contribs) who was original administrator who the closed three of the discussions. I discussed it with him and did what he told me. He said that I should start a discussion on the articles talk page (which I did) and if there was no opposition that I could take the merge tag off. Sorry, if I took it off a little too soon, I was tired of seeing the big tag on the page. :D On King of Hearts (talk · contribs) talk page it is number 23 under the heading Final Consensus consideration. mattchewbaca (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been reading your discussion with Yaksar (talk · contribs) below and when I had my discussion with him I did not try to ignore him like he is trying to make it sound, he is trying to take what I said out of context. I said that I was going to keep adding to them, meaning that I was going to keep adding more information to the articles with the hopes that they wouldn't be deleted. You can see our conversation at his talk page, it is currently number 7 under the heading Howling Bells song pages. mattchewbaca (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you can just delete the articles please, Yaksar has succeeded in killing my spirit, he took something beautiful and tore it down. I'm sure this gives him pleasure. Two minutes after I revert and he re-nominates? To me it feels as if it was an ambush, almost like he was just waiting for me to push the button. Looking over his page it seems the majority of what he does is nitpick over other people's hardwork. Four of the songs even charted, and I cannot even keep one out of eight articles? That doesn't seem very proportional in my mind. Like I said I have looked at many song articles for bands with the same status and there is very little to almost nothing written about the songs but yet they get to stay. I am not going to be able to win over a cyber-bully with power so I am requesting that you just delete everything. Thanks. mattchewbaca (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No, don't. Anything's that probably meets WP:MUSIC (though I'm not sure what) should stay, whatever else can just be up to the community, I'm backing off of these at this point.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yaksar, you're going to need to explain what you mean when you say you're "backing off of these at this point". mattchewbaca (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lear's Fool, can you tell me if there is anything I can do to save my articles or should I just not try? mattchewbaca (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, Lear's Fool, I've merged the singles into the appropriate albums pages, quite a bit of info I cut out to keep it small but it turned out pretty good. :) I was wondering if you could review the articles Howling Bells, Howling Bells, and Radio Wars and maybe they are nice enough to meet good article criteria! I think they are pretty good but I am partial. ;D mattchewbaca (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, they do look much better now. I'm a little busy this weekend, but when I get some spare time I'll have a closer look over the articles. Admittedly, the GA process is still not one I'm entirely familiar with (I've only written one, although I'm aiming for another), but I can certainly give you some pointers. After having a very brief look, it seems to me that there is certainly GA potential there, but as I say, I'll have a look in the next few days.  -- Lear's Fool 12:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, cool. I am currently adding more references to them to try and make them better. mattchewbaca (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

new page

i would like to start a new page, how can i do so? alwayzintosomethin(Alwayzintosomethin (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Thanks

Thanks for that - I'm sure her father appreciates your actions. The-Pope (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. You also want to consider salting it (if you haven't already). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've salted it for a fortnight, hopefully that will be enough. The whole episode seems quite atrocious. I've requested a review of my actions at the BLP noticeboard, as this is the first time I've had to deal with anything like this as an admin.  -- Lear's Fool 16:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The only remaining action would be to "officially" close the AfD as speedy delete due to BLP concerns, or similar wording of your choice, unless you want to let another admin "authorise" your actions by doing that. The-Pope (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what stopped me doing it. I'd feel more comfortable with it being closed once a few more editors and administrators have reviewed my actions.  -- Lear's Fool 16:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't seen this, so I went ahead and non-admin closed it (just as general house keeping). Please feel free to revert my close if you want. Apologies, Jenks24 (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No, no, that's fine. It'll all get sorted out anyway. Thanks for cleaning up after me!  -- Lear's Fool 16:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Alexandra Wallace

As of now, people are more interested in Alexandra Wallace the UCLA student than the obscure newscaster. If the Alexandra Wallace article can only reference one individual, the sparse information about the newscaster can be deleted. Thanks. UCRGrad (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

My condolences

I had been joking with an editor about what we were doing was monotonous and numbing. I joked about jobs that could be worse... roofer in Phoenix, Arizona in summer, sewer guy who manually unclogs pipes or bed ban cleaners. But, after watching your talk page for a bit, an administrator dealing with AfDs takes the cake. You have my condolences on such a hard job. I see, instead of doing flagellation upon yourself, you do AfDs. Bgwhite (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It has it's rough moments, but it's not that bad. I appreciate the thought though! Have you had time to have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William K. Boone? It'll probably be kept in the end, so I may have to have a go at fixing the sourcing a bit.  -- Lear's Fool 08:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

At the moment I don't feel comfortable commenting on AfD's. I've started submitting articles... I've submitted 15 or so. Saying an article isn't worthy and should be permanently deleted is a, I don't know the right word, maybe solemn, grave or the most serious task in Wikipedia. Another reason why your job is one of the hardest. Bgwhite (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That attitude will serve you well if you ever do decide to get involved in deletion policy. Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can help you with that or anything else.  -- Lear's Fool _mobile 22:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Likely sock problem

Hi, considering recent deletions, could you take a look at User:Robdeth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I believe this has been set up as a SPA attack account and if this represents an on-going pattern then an SPI seems in order. Thanks Fæ (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, but both of them are now blocked, and HJ Mitchell has salted the page, so I think we can let it be for the moment. Let me know if this editor makes any more disruptive edits and I'll start the SPI.  -- Lear's Fool 11:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

cclastrotech page

Hi there,

I created a page which was speedly deleted due to some reasons mentioning that the content and reference was not correct ..

can u please check because the last time i updated the content it was absolutely correct and not copied from any source.

The content was drafted by me which metioned the details of a website providing astrological services..

Please Check and revert soont.

Thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsrinivasan (talk • contribs) 11:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Although your initial effort was copied directly from the website, it has been deleted twice because it was an unambiguously promotional page. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and is not a means of promotion for products or services. You may also want to read our conflict of interest guidelines.  -- Lear's Fool 11:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

what should i do if i want to add information about this global website astrology service in encyclopedia? as its a registered compalny which is providing such services..Himanshu Jhamb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsrinivasan (talk • contribs) 11:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of James Lighthill House for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Lighthill House 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/James Lighthill House 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. Mtking (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Question on nobility of beauty queens

I came across an article for Tiffany Seaman. Some state pageants have articles for the winner if they have done something else notable or placed high at the national competition. Other states have a willy nilly attitude. Do you know what makes a beauty queen notable? Bgwhite (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've given it a bit of a cleanup. As far as I know, we don't have a specific guideline for beauty queens, so the general notability guideline (GNG) would be the primary consideration. I imagine there's probably enough coverage out there to meet the GNG, a couple of news articles would probably do it.  -- Lear's Fool 13:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

RevDel

You may want to remove the deletion log entry for this attack page since the name is Spanish for "Jose is VERY gay with Paola". Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for that, Google Translate didn't help me with the title, so I wasn't entirely sure what it said.  -- Lear's Fool 15:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Aurora

Aurora (ship) → SY Aurora, per ship naming convention. On another matter, this might be what you're looking for: {{Adminstats/Lear's Fool}}. Apterygial ^talk 07:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. The problem with that template is that it hasn't updated in months, and I was actually trying to get {{adminbars}}, instead of just the table.  -- Lear's Fool 09:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for that. I might crack out AWB on the weekend and fix links to the article. Apterygial ^talk 11:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing we didn't mention yesterday was a rough word count; I think with the scope of the man's work, 8000 words is probably a good aim. With your side, you'll probably go up to half of that, maybe a touch more. Apterygial ^talk 23:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

8,700 hits is not bad for the bottom hook! BTW, I've started the talk page. Apterygial ^talk 05:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Halie

Thanks for catching that edit on Halie I didnt go back far enough to see that it was an actual page. The edits I saw were serial ones just blasting someone with the same name. Great catch thanks a ton! Golgofrinchian (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, keep up the good work!  -- Lear's Fool 16:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

RfPP

Hey, I've left you a note on your RfPP request. I made a rangeblock instead of semi and I thought you might be interested in the range (for re-blocking later) and my rationale. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Barry O'Farrell

Hey with the notice you have added to this page would you be able to add a note on that there is no premier-elect title in New South Wales either- that is where the majority of the false edits are coming from Kaiserm (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've actually started a discussion to that effect on the article's talkpage. I'd like to see a rough consensus there, first.  -- Lear's Fool 02:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay I've put a note there on Hidden revision as well Kaiserm (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Indefblocking IPs

You really can't block IPs indefinitely since many get reassigned every couple days. (See Special:Contributions/50.2.7.8.) You may wish to reconsider the block length down to something like 31 hours. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ooops! Sorry, you already changed it! ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, a bit of a mental blank on my part. Thanks for the concern though!  -- Lear's Fool 02:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Russleisgay blocked

Good work Lear's Fool, block his socks 'russleisapinhead' and 'russleisagayboy' aswell --Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Lee Rhiannon

I think her communist/socialist background and the way the major parties have used it to smear her should be included. One of the problems of Wikipedia is systemic bias - most of the editors are left-wing so the wiki's political centre of gravity tends towards the left. Paul Austin (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

THANK YOU!

I have been trying to block that IP for about 45 minutes... thanks for the help! Um. Are you an admin? If so I have a couple of questions..VoteDemOut! (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Libertarianrule, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for reporting 208.110.213.162 (talk · contribs); I've blocked them for 1 month, and will keep an eye on them once that expires. In the future, you shouldn't place block templates on the talkpages of vandals, because you are not an administrator and so cannot block users. It is misleading to tell a user they've been when they haven't and can confuse administrators who look into the vandalism report. If you run into problems with vandals in the future, you may find Twinkle a useful tool. It provides simple links for warning users, as well as reporting them to the vandalism noticeboard. I strongly recommend you give our vandalism policy a quick read, especially the bit about dealing with it. To answer your question on my talkpage, I am an administrator, and I'd be very happy to answer any questions you may have.  -- Lear's Fool 18:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Lear's. I thought I could block him using the templates, so I tried it, and was really freaked out when he kept vandalised pages. Anyway, again thanks for doing that. And my question is: Can you be a vandalism-based-only admin or would you be given full admin priviliges? Because if the first case is true, I would like to be a vandal-based-only admin. Otherwise, I will continue working on editing to become a full admin, but still will probably only work on vandalism reverting and blocking.. ThanksVoteDemOut! (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

One more thing.. I cant use twinkle.. I only have IE. What is a tool I can use?? Thanks!VoteDemOut! (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Although specialist vandal-fighting admins have been proposed a number of times, currently there is no such classification, and this will not change in the near future. If you are interested in vandal-fighting, you should give the vandalism policy a read, and consider joining the recent changes patrol. Vandalism patrolling is greatly aided by tools like Twinkle, and unfortunately there are (to my knowledge) no similar scripts for IE. My advice would be to consider downloading and using a free browser like Google Chrome or (my choice) Firefox. Most tools will work with these browsers, and they have the added advantage of being much better than IE for general use :) . I'll be logging off now, but you should feel free to keep any questions you have coming; I'll try to answer them in the morning.  -- Lear's Fool 18:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Allright. Thanks! VoteDemOut! (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

IP issues

Have replied on my talk page - if you or someone else could write up a checkuser request I'd be most grateful (I'd do it myself but am massively time-constrained - heading out of the state again on Friday and 3 university assignments to do before I go :/ ) Orderinchaos 01:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The lulz

Whilst i'd normally rate that of high lulz, i've been too overwhelmed today with various jokes including twists on the Michael Finnegan rhyme. I'm truly laughed out. :P Timeshift (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok fresh day, lulz @ his accusations, and lulz @ the revert. As if he's whinging about my userpage on your talkpage. Funny stuff. Timeshift (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Noteable for Dunstan?

Hi Timeshift! ;) - I note that the law preventing the publication of the name of a child porn offender was introduced by Dunstan. On it's own, is it noteable to say in Dunstan's article that the law he introduced saw it used against an MP of his own party 35 years on? And considering certain rumours about Dunstan, true or otherwise, it potentially makes it more noteable? Obviously one wouldn't draw any conclusions when contributing to the article... your thoughts? On a side note, perhaps Dunstan was psychic and put the law in place so he could be the final nail in the coffin and destroy Rann who these days he'd consider an enemy of social democracy? Ok, that wasn't meant to be serious, but I do wonder what your opinions are generally of a mention in Dunstan's article of the law and how it has affected his party past/present/future? Timeshift (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should wait until the name comes out in the Australian media, but it's worth a thought.  -- Lear's Fool 08:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You can always trust the neocon Oz. I love this bit... "Dunstan's reformist zeal caused him to break the political speed limit and he lost the trust of the electorate in 1968." - what utter POV claptrap. It would serve him well to just take a look at the Labor 2PP of that election... tool. Timeshift (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to add? Same reply as me...?

You don't want the secret to get out that you actually ARE me, do you? Or am I you? No... you're definately me. :P Timeshift (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

As much as I'm enjoying his wild accusations, I think it may be worth employing the last step in revert, block, ignore. I've no doubt he'll be back with more socks when the autoblock expires, I think in the meantime we should stop wasting our time with him.  -- Lear's Fool 08:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)