User talk:Power.corrupts

Welcome

Hello, Power.corrupts! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! --Jza84 | Talk 18:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Homosocratic

Thank you for your homosocratic interaction about the word, homosocratic. You my friend are truly a homosocratic individual deserving a homosocratic barnstar. As soon as homosocratic meets Wikipedias standards as a word, I will create one and award you with it. Thanks.

Medizinische

Not a native speaker, however, Medizinische, as an adjective, should be lower-case, even in a title in the usual German style of capitalization. However, it seems that the capitalization is acceptable, and more importantly, accepted by "wmw", in English, so as you see, I have switched it back. And as for the "nonsense", you are quite right, it's not a literal translation. I do suspect, though, that there is a typo (or "scan-o") in the quotation, and that "irrelühren" should be "irreführen", meaning misguided. The quotation calls the theory of hand-washing deceptive or misleading, which is what the translator was indicating by "nonsense". - Nunh-huh

Thanks, I'll fix the typo Power.corrupts (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semmelweis

I moved your (splendid) article to "contemporary reaction to Ignaz Semmelweis"; also, I remade the lead somewhat. DS (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pics

Sorry, but I had to delete that painting of Semmelweis surrounded by students; as you surmised, it was indeed by Robert Thom. The painting is from 1961, and Thom died in 1979, so there's no way it's public domain. DS (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Chernobyl control room.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Chernobyl control room.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Heinrich Himmler and Gudrun Burwitz.jpg

I've restored the image, and opened a discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Röntgen to gray conversion

You may be an interested party. Please see Talk:Chernobyl disaster#Sloppy_job_with_the_radiation_unit_used. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not contributing to that page any longer, but I've posted my answer there. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Heinrich_Himmler_and_Gudrun_Burwitz.jpg

I noted the image was non-free, because then the image must meet Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Use of the image on Wikipedia would probably meet fair use criteria per United States Copyright law, but the image does not meet WP:NFCC#8. The second hald of the explanation on the closure reason say ". . .and there is no commentary in either article that the image is used in that supports the reasons given to keep the image." Non-free images used in the body of the article need to have sourced text in the article commenting on the significance of the image. A recent example is The Stepford Wives (1975 film). The three images in the body of the article were up for deletion as they were just decorative. The image, the caption and the text really had no connection to each other then being from the same movie. The authors reworked the text and captions to make the images significant to the article. That may not be the best example, but it gives you the idea. -Regards, Nv8200p talk 19:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the exhaustive and constructive answer. I now understand your use of "non-free". It's a simple task to add a commentary in the Gudrun article text. Could you restore the image for me to add that commentary. The image's contribution to the Himmler article may be less significant, so I suggest only to have it on the Gudrun article. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Give it a shot and we'll see if it flies. Remember your supporting text cannot be opinion or original research. -Regards Nv8200p talk 19:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Comments? Power.corrupts (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if we could close this issue soon. Now a different user is acting on what appears to be a technicality. The discussion on the image is spread on this page, my page, the deletion review (which is closed and therefore cannot be ammended). Power.corrupts (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a dialogue with User:Akradecki -Nv8200p talk 19:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are good on this now. -Regards Nv8200p talk 17:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chernobyl_control_room.jpg

‎The photo you put on the cherynobl Disaster page is not the control room for reactor number 4. It is actually a scaled down Image of the control room of reactor Number 3 from The August 1994 edition of National Geographic dedicated to Soviet pollution and the effects of Cherynobl. Here are some examples that the photograph is not reactor number 4 and it is post soviet. If you look at the top background you will see that one of the lights in the ceiling is burnt out and it is flurecent. The thing is that reactor 4 was a very new reactor when it went online and it would be very unlikley that it would burn out after several months. Another example is that in the background, you can see a 90's era computer resting on a desk. Not only were computers like that nonexistant in the Soviet Union (if not the world) but also that it would be very unlikley that the Soviets would use a external software system in order to control a fairly new computer. If you look at pictures of the ruined control room and this one, you will notice that the button paterns do not match and is smaller than the control room of number four. So if you could, please delete this image in order to avoid confusion. There are no known photos of The reactor 4 control room just like there is no video of the origional Explosion. This is not my real account but when I typed this talk I was not logged in at the time.-Regards RezaShah4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.235.190.145 (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Talk:Chernobyl_disaster#Image:Chernobyl_control_room.jpg - - - Power.corrupts (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(deleted new comment) Please keep the discussion at Talk:Chernobyl_disaster#Image:Chernobyl_control_room.jpg for others to contribute. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have visited Chernobyl have you? I had a friend who grew up there and was evacuated.Ikip (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Underlying paradigms

We are ... largely oblivious to the underlying paradigms that shape our understanding of the world

This (link) is an excellent observation. Perhaps we should try to make a list of the most commonly-believed paradigms. I'll start, if I may. We all believe that that physical laws are invariant. That is, if gravity pulls downward on objects in flight (heavy ones like cannonballs, I mean) it's not going to suddenly stop doing so. We expect continuity, and it's part of our "scientific faith" (to coin a term). At any rate, it's certainly part of my scientific faith. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks, but I don't think I can take credit for that observation. Probably read it somewhere. Perhaps you would be interested in List of cognitive biases. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tamding Tsering

Hello Power.corrupts. With regard to your statements at Talk:Tamding Tsering, you should bring up your concerns about the deletion of Tenzin Tsering by listing it at Wikipedia:Deletion review, if you wish the decision to be reconsidered. Best wishes, – Toon ^(talk) 20:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not appear to be listed at WP:DRV at present. I will look tomorrow. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identification of people in 1853 picture

I found the names you asked for, see Talk:University of Vienna --131.130.242.254 (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Barnstar

		The Philippine Barnstar
		For your assistance in the development of a Philippine-related article. -- Sultan-Commander (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knopperdisk

Knopperdisk is a distro that in 2007 released the last version, and you can see in distrowatch the historial, i don't my impresion is that article remain, thanks Shooke (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Con rapidez. Muchísimas gracias. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mil disculpas...

...pero no pude evitarlo. Saludos, ~~×α£đ ~~^es 22:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mucho mejor asi, gracias de nuevo. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Tamding Tsering

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tamding Tsering. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment in edit summary

I didn't really like what you implied here; I PROD shin-bang not because it was easy to do so, but because I genuinely believe this is an unencyclopedic slang dicdef for which no reliable secondary sources could exist. But given the fact that a few people will inevitably suggest it can be cleaned up, I won't be nominating it for deletion. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand very much what you are saying. But you had not provided any reason in the PROD template and I found the page potentially useful. Worse, I had just come across PRODs of characters of the Doonesbury comic strip, argued in "no real life notability", a Kafkan argument that had lowered my civility treshold. I have attempted to pay penance by adding a new reference to the Shin-bang article from a sports magazine, and I will think more than twice, drink some water etc, before doing so again, if ever. Appologies. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I hope I have explained myself more thoroughly now. I came across the article through WT:MED among a pile of nonsense articles, which might explain my lack of motivation. Thanks for your explanation, cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Power.corrupts, for his defense of the defenseless in a time of need, and for his intelligent arguments and insightful quotes. Thank you Ikip (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see a friendly face on the FICT RfC, keep in touch, okay? Ikip (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure ;-) Power.corrupts (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kanjivellam

At a recent AfD discusion, you argued in favor of keeping a Kanjivellam -- the Malayam word for gruel made with water and rice -- a separate article from Gruel. Articles must demonstrate notability (which I think this one has not) and be based on reliable sources. So far, the only "reliable sources" that have been found are a history of a religious community, which mentions it once in passing, and a press release from an Indian charity which mentions it as an example of a food they feed to sick children.

If you have further reliable sources, or other information about how this article can be developed without simply redirecting it to Gruel, please leave a message at Talk:Kanjivellam. Thanks for your help, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A centralised discussion which may interest you

Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brassenx

I modified your translation of that article from French. Fors et coutumes are local laws and customs; see Talk:Brassenx. Thanks for letting me help. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at that talk page Power.corrupts (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I used to be a Sex Pistols fan. In fact, one rather bleak couple of days in the deep of winter in 1978, me and a bunch of guys from my college dorm drove from Muncie to Memphis to see the Sex Pistols on their North American tour. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

buzz saw

eh. it's a stub for a semi-non-notable coaster that may or may not be notable. I've seen worse. Won't affect me one way or the other if it stays or goes, as the article currently sits. Thx for sharing. SpikeJones (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya’akov Banai

Hi, I saw that you deleted the PROD tag from Ya’akov Banai. I originally tagged it, and did so because it did not meet the criteria for [[WP:NOT|notibility], namely that there has not been any coverage of the subject in reliable sources on the internet. Do you have any you can reference and add to the article? Bladeofgrass (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity in meta-analysis

Your prod was removed, so I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravity in meta-analysis. Plastikspork (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for en:Bezgovo cvrtje

An editor has asked for a deletion review of en:Bezgovo cvrtje. I am not familiar with deletion review, how can I do it? --Pinky sl (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pinky, it was only to keep you informed, as I had earlier indicated to you, that I would take this to DRV. I'm not requesting any specific action from you Power.corrupts (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your valiant championing of Bezgovo cvrtje. Bravo! Colonel Warden (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

I have posted a question at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Bezgovo_cvrtje which you may be able to answer. Can you please return to that discussion to answer it? Stifle (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bezgovo cvrtje

Bra gjort. Warrington (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamen selv tak for din indsat, jeg synes at det er helt urimeligt. Vi får se hvad der sker. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tack, tack. Ja, vi får se hvad der sker... Är du en optimist? Warrington (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I princippet ja, men udvikilngen ind til videre skuffer mig. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Fornace Morandi

Pages are not intended to be links to other sites, whether language wikis or other. You need to write a stand-alone article, perhaps translating from the Italian version. jimfbleak (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator has probably been unaware of that wiki policy and just wanted to contribute. I merely checked for notability and found a similar page on the Italian wiki, town etc was matching, seems to be a notable archeological building of sorts. So I just added the link to the Italian page, for other editors to continue from there. Bottom line is though, that there is enough context to identify the article's subject. A speedy delete seems clearly inappropriate. Of course I could translate some text from the Italian wiki, but why shouldn't we leave that job to some other editors Power.corrupts (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a link farm. You need to write a proper article, perhaps translated from the Italian. jimfbleak (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A single link is better than no links at all, and one cow doesn't make a farm. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also needs independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a reliable source in itself jimfbleak (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability concerns is not a valid reason for speedy delete Power.corrupts (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikuta (2nd nomination)

Thank you for the bad-faith comments here, especially give that your edit comment (as I demonstrated in my AFD nomination and in the the fact that this had been previously deleted) shows your removal of the Prod tag was poorly argued and hastily done. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PROD removal: Can you pls add the relevant notice?

Can you please add the notice to the talk page when you remove a PROD? Thanks. --Klein zach 23:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Do you mean this? - {{oldprodfull}}, or something else. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bezgovo cvrtje

Bezgovo cvrtje – Deletion endorsed – kurykh 07:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Warrington (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, ja, jeg er overbevist om at jeg har en god sag, nu prøver jeg at skaffe grundfast bevismateriale fra slovenske redaktører, og så håber jeg at kunne få disse sletteglade folk til at æde deres ord i sig igen. Et er, at jeg ikke kunne finde referencer på det kongelige bibliotek i København, det var vel forventeligt, men jeg havde regnet med at kunne finde noget på det nationale bibliotek i Prag, de er beslægtede, både kulturelt og sprogmæssigt. Det kan sagtens være på grund a mine sprogvanskeligheder, da jeg kun taler et gebrokkent tjekkisk, substantiverne bøjes efter syv casus, og det volder mig store vanskeligheder. Artiklen selv er uden stor betydning, men principperne er helt grundlæggende, og jeg vil køre den videre, hvis der er mulighed for det. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have received your inquiry on the dish Bezgovo cvrtje, which means the food is fried in oil. Bezgovo cvrtje is a Slovenian national dish with elder berries. Berries are wrapped in dough and fried in oil, served with cranberry compote. I have found some recipes but they are all in Slovene. If you could tell more specificaly what would you require, I might get some more info from certain proffesors of Ethnology at our University. Katja

Thank you so much, yes I will Power.corrupts (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nej, ikke på det Kongelige bibliotek i København… Tjekkisk?:)) er nog vanskeligt… Du vil køre den videre, men er der mulighed for det? Warrington (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed your PROD of EN 62262

I don't understand your brief assertation "Notability; unencyclopedic". It is pretty obvious in the two-line article that it's a newer version of EN 50102 - so I've requested a tech deletion and a page move instead. IMO - it's as encyclopaedic as it gets Power.corrupts (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about the same article? It's been deleted now, but the one I tagged had no references, no introduction, no links to or from it and no possible claim to notability. . . Rcawsey (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say for sure, now the history is gone. The info was in the text, but it was not wiki-linked. Copied the short text of the last version to the talk page, just for the record, if you want to check it, but it's all history now. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invited three other editors to answer

I invited three other editors to answer your question too: User_talk:Ikip#no_real-world_notability_established Man in Black had a really thoughtful and good answer I thought.Ikip (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG had a characteristically long, but thoughtful reply too. Ikip (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

WikiThanks

Thank you for your supportive words of encouragement. Ikip (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mobility model

Mobility Models in mobile adhoc has just popped up. Since: someone had tagged it as confusing, you had got in first and it was a poor title, I have redirected it. But please check if it contains anything worth copying over. But be aware that it is mostly a copyvio - see this Google search. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that Deeptisen, Ngharish and Ktdharan are part of a student project. Deeptisen did try to create a mobility model article before they wrote about individual models but it got deleted. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty rough greeting you offer this newcomer. Only 15 minutes after sHe created this page, you delete the text outright - touché. After two attempts of recreation, perhaps attempts to improve it, you move in for the kill with your sysop-privileges, and protect the page - le coup de grâce. No attempts to explain what you are unhappy about, no help, no communication whatsoever. What happened to WP:AGF? - and to WP:DONTBITE the newcomers? Maybe you are right that it's a student project (what is wrong with that by the way?) You are right though, that the itemized list was copied from:

Camp, Tracy (2002). "A survey of mobility models for ad hoc network research". Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing. 2 (5): 483–502. doi:10.1002/wcm.72. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), and so was another list of items.

I could find some other sentences, which may have been sampled from other peer-reviewed works, but a large part seems to be the creators' own work. Some encouragement, rephrasing and rearranging may have saved the article, and you could have managed to recruit one/two/(three?) new editors, within the weirdo (but very notable) specialized field of "mobility node modelling" for mobile communication protocols. Wiki sure could need some help here, as many articles on this subject are stubby. I sincerely hope that this is merely an opportunity foregone, that all what happened is that one/two/(three?) students are now disillusionized future Wikipedians, and we won't see them anytime soon. There is a risk though, that your welcome salvo has infuriated them, and thay you therefore have recruited one/two/(three?) future persistent vandals and trolls. We really should welcome new editors. Imagine! They could become future valuable assets. For the fun of it, I looked at your first article Trunk vs Toll waaay back in 2005. REAL crappy first version you came up with there, at least it managed to exist for 59 minutes, before being nominated for Speedy deletion. But you were a very norty boy and removed the Speedy tag yourself (oops), and then improved the article stepwise. Well, gratulations. I would say though, that it still (after four years!) has no references whatsoever, there is no claim of notability, and somebody could think it look just a bit like original research. Man!, nowadays, this kind of article could Speedied anytime. Power.corrupts (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(copied this reply)

I am beginning to think that you like arguing for the sake of it. Facts:

the only edits by user:Deeptisen which have been deleted were these
is not this an attempt to explain myself?

Why don't you apologise profusely to Deeptisen on behalf of Wikipedia, ask them how they felt about my message and invite them to contribute. Do you agree that Mobility Models in mobile adhoc was a fork of mobility model? What would you have done if you had seen Mobility Models in mobile adhoc? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I didn't see your encouragement note, because the user was redlinked, I realize I could have seen it in the revision history, because the talk page was not relinked. Only one deleted edit? I consider it very likely indeed that Deeptisen perceived your edits as deletions, while very stricly speaking they may technically not be so, because the contributions are still in the history. What I would have done? I would have put the encouragement note first, shown a good deal of patience, and done the redirect and page-protect later. Your put up your encouragement note 15 minutes after you protected the page, User:Deeptisen may not even have seen it. Certainly, your actions may have spoken louder than your note. Your encouraging(?) comment "I do hope you will find the power to corrupt mobility model with your stuff" here is also ambiguous to say the least Power.corrupts (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polish noble families

I've prodded Dołęga-Zaleski and Dołęga-Mycielski again, as they make no claim of notability whatsoever. I've also prodded Korab, also it may be perhaps merged to the Korab coat of arms instead? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I didn't understand (and still dont) your reasons for "no claim of notablity", as I asked here once. If you replied to this, can you provide a link please. My basic question was, if you dont think that nobility is notable. Again, I have little interest in entering a debate with Polish editors, over troubles with Polish people, based on references that I cannot read. I only intervened, because I felt the arguments were lacking. Technically, you shouldnt re-PROD. If there is consensus with other Polish editors, I dont mind, because the AfD circuit is overloaded. Still, I would like to see a reply to my question. Thanks. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication in text of those two articles that those two families were notable. While the other articles at least made such a claim, those articles are nothing but statements that "such a family existed". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply Power.corrupts (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Block

Hello Russian Freedom Fighter (great image!). Quite surprised to see you ran into a block .... I thought you were on wiki vacation (!?) I can see it is the Business Plot page that curtailed your vacation. Seems to be an real interesting story, many references, I might have some time next week to look more into this. The sheer amount of time you throw into Wiki sure justifies that you take a break, enjoying the pleasures of real life - hopefully you will return re-invigorated. You are an idealist and I can imagine your frustrations: while an inclusionist is away, lots of usefull material is deleted by editors that don't share your values, and if the article is deleted, so is the evidence. Not so if a deletionist goes on vacation, the material is still there to delete when he returns, no time issue here. Problematic asymmetry. C'est la vie. Enjoy your break, honestly. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Privet (hi), Power corrupts, Kak Dela? (how are you). And to add to your line of thinking, the amount of effort to save anything on wikipedia is completely disporportianal to those who want something kept, as opposed to those who want something deleted. After 4 years here, I have yet to find a quick and easy solution to countering such disruptive behavior.

Hundreds of hours maybe invested referencing an article (like in the case of Business Plot) in an attempt to make the article the best reference on the web, but all it takes is less than two hours for two like minded editors with a history of disruption, to delete dozens of references and over a thousand words of references, that is why I have an Talk:Business Plot#RfC open about this disruptive and destructive behavior. Ikip (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paradoxical effects

If you want to attract rabid deletionists at Wikipedia to look at an article, just mention it on my talk page. Myself, I intend to wait and see if it gets nominated for afd. DGG (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles shouldn't lie low, trying to stealth the many deletion radar sweeps. If an article is bad and unsalvable, then it must go. I lean heavily on Wikipedia:Editing policy: "... one of the great advantages of the wiki model is that incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can, over time, evolve into masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing. Thus, even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcomed". This basic policy identifies deletion as a last resort, not the first knee jerk reflex response. (respectfully, I'm not implying that you have this disposition). I am ambivalent (often unhappy) about the PROD process, the decision if a deletion is uncontroversial and therefore suitable for PROD, is quite subjective, the deletion process itself is stealthy and does not at all guarantee even minimum oversight, and the deletion window is horribly short, only five days. Add to this that the evidence disappears, there is no way to ex-post examine if deletion was warranted or not. I'm wondering why deleted articles aren't transferred to a Wiki-dust-bin project, where patient editors could mine salvable articles, especially those articles deleted on flimsy notability concerns. I can't imagine that I should be the first to think of this - do you have any knowledge on prior discussions on this. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Power.corrupts. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dołęga-Zaleski and Dołęga-Mycielski

Of interest.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your AfD table

Hi,

I've reformatted the table as requested and posted it on the talk page for the AfD under Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Thumperward 2#AfD table. Might want to just point people there instead of including it inline. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galen

I am posting on your page because I notice your interest in Galen on his article’s discussion page. I have myself written a dissertation and published a couple papers on him. I have made some additions to the web page, and have added a lot of comments on the discussion page that I hope will contribute to the communities’ understanding and the article’s quality. If you have any thoughts about this that you would like to share with me, feel free to post them on my talk page under the Galen category. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Cosans (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)]] comment added by Cosans (talk • contribs) 17:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Messiah at the Gates of Rome

This article is again being attacked and harassed. Please come help. Thank you.Das Baz 16:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

tumbona

hi power! abaut "La Tumbona House", in spanish, that word means chair for the beach, but comes from the verb "tumbarse" that means "lay in the floor, or in the shade" The name is not given by Clorindo Testa, but for the owners, as is tradition in Argentina. i hope that helps...--Pruxo (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just for me to understand this in depth, "tumbarse" can not refer to the breaking of waves, or the waves coming roling in, "las olas se tumban" etc, but ONLY a beach chair? Is that what you are saying? Power.corrupts (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Notability of free open source software

Wikipedia is currently missing a standard of notability for free open source software. I wrote a proposal at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Notability of free open source software and would like to get your opinion, since you seemed interested in the issue. Thank you, Dandv (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a personal attack on my talk page

Please do not post any further personal attacks on my talk page. If you had actually read the applicable notability criterion for the articles you deprodded, you would have seen that your suggestions as to notability had already been rejected by consensus. And, Mr "I-have-a-PhD", it's insulting to all the hard working good faith editors on Wikipedia to say, like you did, that checking for sources is "clerk work" that's beneath your PhDignity. And for somebody who calls for other people to WP:AGF, you ought to take your own advice. I did do the checking you claim I didn't. Your behavior bordered on vandalism. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anais Alexander

You deprodded this article and posted a snide personal attack regarding me on the article's talk page. You claimed the subject was inherently notable because she was a Penthouse Pet of the month. If you had bothered to read the applicable notability criterion, WP:PORNBIO, and the related discussions, you would have learned that this standard had already been rejected by a strong consensus. If you had bothered to actually follow up the discussions on my talk page carefully,you would have learned that those comments you cite approvingly were placed there by a set of vandalous editors who have been harassing me and other editors/admins who have been trying to maintain Wikipedia standards on articles they're trying to turn into promotional pieces for several of their friends. Example User:POVbattler. A sugggestion for you in the future -- before you go around insulting people who actually take the time to check what they're doing before they edit, DO THAT YOURSELF! Having a PhD doesn't give you the right to attack and insult other editors based on your superficial, unreliable, wild-ass opinions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Aguchi

You wrote "I'm not inclined to to do clerk work, searching high and low for sources the nominee could not care to search for himself, in a topic I have no particular interest in." That's a hel of an attitude, and a good reason not to edit the way you've been editing, Dr. Corrupts. An unsourced (and unverifiable) that someone won a medal at an unidentified child's sporting event doesn't even suggest Wikipedia notability. But, as you admit, you didn't even read the applicable notability standard, but posted an uncivil rant on my talk page and on the article talk page without bothering to discuss matters with me. Your PhD doesn't exempt you from WP:CIVIL. It doesn't give you special rights to set your own notability standards either. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Baldwin

If you'd bothered to read the discussions at WP:PORNBIO, which you admit you didn't, you'd have learned that WP:PORNBIO was tightened up last year because articles like this one were considered inappropriate. By a very strong consensus. Why do you think it's OK to post personal attacks on users who actually read discussions and try to apply consensus established standards just because you don't like the consensus results? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sure did read the discussion and have reservations regarding consensus. I posted a message at the talk page. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and your comments make clear that you did so well after posting your uniformed personal attack on my talk page and elsewhere. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledgment

Greetings, thank you for your advice regarding the marking of articles for deletion. I have read it through and taken on board your suggestions for future consideration. Regards magnius (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Barnstar

Thanks you so much for the barnstar, I really appreciate it! :) I hadn't even heard of the show before I saw that AfD, but I found tons of reliable sources on Google and I couldn't just let someone delete an article about such a notable series. TheLeft orium 19:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lumino Kinetic Art

Seems to me you can delete this page on Lumino Kinetic Ar - or merge it.

Valueyou (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Janet Allison

A tag has been placed on Janet Allison requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. E Wing (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Janet Allison

The article Janet Allison has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable per WP:BLP1E (Articles about people notable only for one event)

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. ∙ AJCham talk 21:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice that you have removed the PROD template, with the summary, WP:BLP1E not applicable, clear pass for GNG. Please could you elaborate on why this is so - as far as I can discern WP:BLP1E would certainly seem to apply. The subject is indeed only notable for one event and I can not find any significant coverage since that time; only a few editorial pieces published in the past fortnight. Thanks. ∙ AJCham talk 23:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- BLP1E is, even as notability guidelines go, an extraordinary subjective and vague affair, it is also often misunderstood - but it clearly does not apply to this article. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Articles that say stuff like "best shopping mall in central INDIA" and "but treasure island is the best of all" is spam. Articles that are in AFD can still be speedied. Joe Chill (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I just noticed your comment on the AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought :-) Power.corrupts (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Janet Allison

I have nominated Janet Allison, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Allison. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Lara 15:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday)

Mind explaining your statement? Ironholds (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or more specifically - mind withdrawing your baseless and unwarranted accusation of bad faith? Ironholds (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not exactly alone in that perception. Quoting another editor here:

You must admit it IS strange to nominate for deletion a page included by consensus in a policy which you use against it. Well, strange to the verge of nonsense. The fact that you use that policy means you knew it was an example there, so it IS hard to assume good faith in this case. User:Jeni

Power.corrupts (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fyi

Are you considering requesting a DRV on Janet Allison? Please take a look at User:Geo Swan/review/Janet Allison. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Geo! Much obliged. Yes I am, but following DGG's recommendation I have to do more homework, and I've run into the much lamentable situation, that I sometimes have to do paid work. Family obligations also count, but maybe I can stay up one of these nights. I'll keep you informed. Thanks again. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And thanks for your comments at User talk:Tiptoety#BLP and User talk:Tiptoety#When should articles be speedy deleted under BLP? Power.corrupts (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your welcome. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Network television schedules

Hi Power,

Your input at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Per_station_television_schedules would be greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motor control in humans

FYI, the correct speedy tag here was R2 (redirect from article space to non-article space), not G8 (page dependent on non-existent page). The error was no big deal, but I just wanted to let you know for future reference. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian infanticide

Hi, PC:

I have read an old post of yours in "Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard regarding Question re Spanish" as well as another post in talk:Infanticide. See what I have just written in the section "Rewriting history by blanking out parts of..." in that talk page.

Sincerely,

--88.5.179.229 (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)

Since you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (6th nomination), which was closed as no consensus and later relisted after a DRV discussion, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

From the: "I can't believe they are not a member yet" files. Hope life is treating you well :)

Hello, Power.corrupts.
You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing.
For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks, I'm massively busy in meatspace right now, had an acute major dentist procedure Monday, etc, really no time for Wikipedia right now. Will return. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your welcome. meatspace? Hmmm... hope you are okay. Ikip (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hospitals-Meddelelser

The article Hospitals-Meddelelser has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Medical journal published from 1848-1856. Google search (although less appropriate for such an old journal) only shows WP and mirrors and a few Scandinavian library sites. No indication of any notability.

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. Crusio (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Hospitals-Meddelelser

I have nominated Hospitals-Meddelelser, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hospitals-Meddelelser. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Crusio (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File talk:Heinrich Himmler and Gudrun Burwitz.jpg

Sorry but I don't any knowledge to add to the discussion on this image's provenance. I wish you luck - hopefully the photographer was diligent in record keeping. Peripitus (Talk) 09:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Janet Allison

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Janet Allison. 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. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC) link Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 6[reply]

I NOINDEXed the user page. But should you have a userfication of an article deleted for BLP reasons anyway? It might be better to keep it off-wiki for now. Misarxist (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a userified version of the article (I can confirm they are quite different) but rather a new version he created from scratch. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. But did you notice that the article was anonymized in order for non-admins to be able to contribute in the DRV. If there is no name, there is hardly a BLP issue, and no sensitive info for the the NO_INDEX not to index. Some veteran admins at the DRV claim that there is no BLP issue, and not a BLP1E issue. Again, I have no problem with a no_index tag. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out of sequence) Yes, sorry, there was no BLP problem w/ the version I rather officiously noindexed. And you are certainly doing the right thing by the person in question, apologies again for implying quite the opposite. Misarxist (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the DRV is over and the close said it was OK to make an article on "the case." With your permission, I'd like to go ahead and move your version into the incubator to facilitate the process of rewriting for focus. (Your version is superior to the deleted version.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be excellent. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool. Now the question is what to name the article. The most logical choice is out, I suppose. The original case was presumably called "State of Georgia v. Allison", although "State of Georgia v. Janet [middle name] Allison" is also possible. Unless you have any immediate suggestion I'll just put it as /Janet Allison for now (the page will be noindexed, so I can't imagine that being an issue) and we can work out the exact name later. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Respectfully, I defer to have an opinion. Many delete-voters expressed that the article was so poorly, diletantly and negatively written - an argument I simply dont get. Most people seem to have been hung up precisely over the title, which, IMO, triggered a Pavlov BLP reflex. English is a foreign language to me, and I would be happy to leave these delicate and trickly issues for a week or so. Would be more than happy to provide content though. Anyway, it's late i my time zone now. I'm grateful for your support and your offer to improve the article Power.corrupts (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have moved your sandbox to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Janet Allison and un-anonymized it. I will invite a few of the people who seemed genuinely interested in helping work on it to join in. For the record, I do agree that the "grossly inappropriate as a BLP but just fine as a case record" position is rather bizarre. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the box!

I was looking everywhere for that box! I deleted it from my page a while ago. I wanted to link to it on an article I came across Wikipedia_talk:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Tagging_templates Enjoy :) Ikip (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Semmelweis stamp Austria 1965.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Semmelweis stamp Austria 1965.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jüri Jevdokimov

now how exactly does it pass WP:ATH? BanRay 00:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two possibilities, and the one I had in mind is ATH #1: he is playing at a professional level. WP:BIO is not relevant, that was the reason for my dePROD Power.corrupts (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He plays for an amateur club in a semi pro league, next time please try contacting the nominator before removing prod templates, cheers. BanRay 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims he a a "professional footballer". Your PROD rationale was "fails WP:BIO" which is completely misleading (and irrelevant) if your real point is that he plays for an amateur club in a semi pro league. A dePROD on this basis is nothing but expectable. Instead of saying that I should do this or that, you should be more precise in your rationales, this would save everybody's time. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe you should stick to something more up your alley? Just a thought. BanRay 10:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edits at Viracocha

I was wondering if you'd be interested in looking at the off-topic discussion at Talk:Pumapunku which raises some issues that need debunking in the relevant articles. You may know more for instance about Quetzalcoatl than I do that can be used on his article to debunk this 'white' nonsense. Thanks. Dougweller (talk • contribs) 10:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maybe I'll look into it, but I'm well outside my comfort zone. I was there by pure accident because I (mistakenly) thought that a Wiracocha article was non-existing, following a lead from a the recently created Pishtaco, which I came by on the Help page etc. - i.e. a random surf trail. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I sympathise. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NewsBreak

There's only any point merging if there's something to merge. In this case the article effectively said that "NewsBreak is a feed reader", something that is spurious in the list article (because of course that's the reason it's in the list article). The article didn't assert any notability at all. Black Kite 13:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but sometimes articles are cut short just before being nom for AfD, and anyway nothing at all is won by deleting the revision history, we only make it more difficult to recreate it if more info becomes available. That's why I ask you to restore it, per editing policy, as explained in my first request, and which I believe would be more in line with the AfD discussion, which to me was keep as no consensus. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

I did multiple searches on Google, accessmylibrary, and BNET. So please stay away from dickish comments like "at the very least you could throw the Spanish Wikipeia page into Google translate" and "Could we please have some more dilligent nominations, out of respect for the AfD process and, not the least, other Wikipedian's time". Joe Chill (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DRV closure

Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been incredibly busy with the holidays. Xoloz summarizes my thoughts on DRV pretty well in this discussion. DRV is not a vote, but the untangling of the consensus can be trickier than in a normal XfD because of the need to consider policy, content, and process factors in the discussion. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Fot helping me to save Megarex article, find sufficient reliable sources to give it notability. Thank you! Victor Silveira (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, how can you find sources so easily? There are some articles you found many sources, but I can't do it. How can you do it? Thank you again! Victor Silveira (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, I appreciate the recognition and the star. I dont find sources easily, it's just hard work scraping sources off non-English web resources; I would say disproportionately hard work compared to the ease of nominating articles for deletion and tossing out delete !votes. It can be sort of fun to find sources, but participating in ignorance-driven deletion activities, veiled in WP:N speak, is a source of frustration that takes the pleasure out of contributing to Wikipedia. Too bad, because everywhere I look I see gaping holes in the coverage. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palace gardener Johan Ludvig Mansa

"Ignorance-driven deletion activities", rolling on the floor laughing my ass off! Thank you so much for this and for your help with the translation [1] [2]. You've turned my Wikiday from utter darkness and frustration to happiness. Cheers! (Ice Explorer (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Heinrich Kaan and categories

Surely the "Classic psychology books" category belongs on the article about his book "Psychopathia Sexualis (Heinrich Kaan)" , where it aleady appears, rather than also being placed on the article about its author? AllyD (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right!, reverted my edit. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Is it your intent to source Ampasayya Naveen in the very near future? Hipocrite (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one having a problem with this article, you are the one who would rather have other people do the work that your sloppy nominations show you dont want to do yourself, and I'm not your bell boy. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IAR petition signature

This made me giggle. :-) Well done. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please be aware that if you continue to remove PROD's of long-unsourced biographies without attempting to alieviate the sourcing problem, you will likley be blocked. Hipocrite (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, your PRODs are completely mindless, you dont even take minimal care, you dont follow policy WP:BEFORE and I consider your actions vandalism and not covered by ArbCom's blanket amnesty for PAST actions. I dont mind bringing this up in a larger forum. Take your sloppy noms to AfD and you will be slapped. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you're doing is a violation of WP:POINT. There's a large pile of biographies of living people that need to be cleaned up. Please don't obstruct the processing of legitimate prods by removing the tags without curing the problems, unless of course the tagging is a bona fide error. You seem to be the one who is acting a bit thoughtlessly. Thank you for listening. Jehochman ^Brrr 00:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to talk about pointy edits, lets talk about the 500+ BLP pages that were deleted yesterday. which Hipocrite, not surprisingly, endorses fully.[3] I respect you Jehochman for at least acknowledging the need for consensus in those arguments.

The PROD tag states:

"You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page."

Therefore Hipocrite's threat: "PROD's of long-unsourced biographies without attempting to alieviate the sourcing problem, you will likley be blocked." is empty. As long as Power mentions the reason why he is removing the tag, Hipocrite has absolutly no legitimate reason to complain.

Looking at Hipocrite's edits, he is obviously ignoring WP:BEFORE. Ikip 00:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need to work on the PROD template so I'm not about to block anybody over this. However, in the name of courtesy, would all sides please stand down from mass actions of a controversial nature until we all have a chance to finish up the RFC and make any necessary changes to templates and policy pages. A pretty clear consensus is forming so I do not think the delay will be long at all. Jehochman ^Brrr 00:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same RFC which was started because of Scott MacDonald "utter contempt" for consensus? We should not reward disruption.

there absolutly will be no blocks. If anything Hipocrite should be scolded for continuing this disruption. Power Corrupt is only responding to mass disruption.Ikip 00:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let the other guy do the wrong thing, then he'll be the one who gets hammered instead of you. Jehochman ^Brrr 00:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one making an attempt to solve this unsourced BLP problem is going to get "hammered" for it. People willfully obstructing these attempts may, but those trying to solve the problem will not. Unit Anode 03:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second this warning. The only thing "mindless" here is your unthinking removal of valid PRODs, without even attempting to alleviate the underlying problem with sources. What you're doing is disruptive. Unit Anode 03:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, Power, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Razi Abedi. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I unsecond this warning. Stop the book burning.--Milowent (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you once, and I'll tell you again: stop comparing placing PROD tags to book burning. It's a moronic comparison, and is completely without merit. It makes you look bad, nothing more. Unit Anode 04:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider you calling me a moron an honor, then. Sure, book burning has all sorts of connotations that go with it, but as wikipedia explains, "the practice, usually carried out in public, is generally motivated by moral, religious, or political objections to the materials." Here it is generally a moral objection, though 95% of BLPs are not at issue. People are prodding without even seeing if things can be sourced.--Milowent (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading comprehension seems to be lacking right now. Where did I call you a moron? I said that comparing placing PRODs to book burning was a "moronic comparison." It is. Unit Anode 05:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IS NOT! NAnaNaNaNA!--Milowent (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You really are quite a guy. Unit Anode 05:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, flattery will get you everywhere.--Milowent (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the ArbCom's seemingly passed motion, the current RFC, Jimbo Wales endorsement of the mass deletions, WP:BLP, and previous ArbCom decisions related to BLP: If you continue to remove the PROD tags I will block and revert you. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Power, pay no heed to coffees bullying. Coffee is the editor who wheel warred, unblocking and fervently supporting the administrators who have "utter contempt" for consensus. He then edited a protected page to his version (again ignoring three years of consensus) after an arbitrator said they would desop anyone who tried.

Coffee, is distorting policy just as Hipocrite is above:

Arbcom made no ruling on BLP policy, they asked the community to open a RFC yesterday, that RFC is still open, and has only been open for a day.
Only the community makes policy, not Jimbo, not arbcom. Coffee knows that.

Unfortunately coffee and Hipocrite selectively pick and choose which policy to follow.

I am notifying a couple of admins about this bullying. Ikip 05:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try it. See how far it gets you. Unit Anode 05:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikip: I've been debating asking for a ban of yourself with your constant disruption in this area. Please watch your step, — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unitanode, you have no authority.

Coffee stop bullying editors period. Power corrupts, unlike the editors you fervently support, is following the rules.

It is incredibly hypocritical for you to talk about disruption when the editor you so strongly supported stated "But drama and disruption is far more likely to do some good here..."Community consensus" is something I have learned by bitter experience to hold in utter contempt."[4]

Ikip 05:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your fit of pique is quite amusing. Please carry on. Unit Anode 06:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a legit question -- isn't it true that regarding PRODs, "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page." -- one must act in good faith, but de-prodding because one thinks an article is likely sourceable is appropriate, no?--Milowent (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what P.c was doing. S/he was simply mass-removing PRODs. Check the edit summaries. Absolutely no attempt to actually fix the problem mentioned in the PROD message. Unit Anode 06:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While perhaps that's not ideal, though there are extenuating circumstances at the moment, it does say "You may remove this message if you ... otherwise object to deletion for any reason".--Milowent (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." pretty clear.

Unitanode, aren't you describing the way you yourself approach PRODs: "Absolutely no attempt to actually fix the problem mentioned in the PROD message." Unitanode, I find it incredibly amusing you are preaching WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Ikip 07:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a craze and bunch of rogue admins I'm waking up to. Unfortunately I have a busy workday ahead with little time to reply. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- you must be a real perceived "problem" to garner so much attention. Bask in the glow baby. ;) Best wishes, as I will be leaving soon. I hope I helped, always a pleasure to work with you. Ikip ^{Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):}_{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 09:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ikip, please do not leave, as you are a clear voice of reason in this and many other discussions. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Hipocrite PRODed an article with the edit summary: "PROD this shit". I left him a note on his talk page.[5] Ikip ^{Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):}_{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 21:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how to proceed

Power corrupts, you asked me to comment. You are indeed waking up into a day after an attempting reversal of Wikipedia practices was seemingly endorsed by arb com. I have stated elsewhere what I think of the actions of both groups. The RfC represents the current state of opinion more exactly, and the impression I get is a willingness to find some sort of compromise that will address the problem fairly quickly without continuing the chaos. Given that we ought to find some situation other than fighting, the best course for everyone is to act carefully. There is what I understand to be a current acceptance by those wishing to delete that they will at least permit the articles to be first examined, and proceed via prod and afd, not by unilateral admin single-handed speedies without a criterion, as they did at first. We need to encourage them to do it. ( I have unhesitatingly unprodded and will continue to unprod where I can find a source, or where I have some good feeling that a source can be provided, but I give such as a reason, not just that unsourced is not a reason for deletion, because some people here are under the impression that it is, however wrong they may be.

I have examined some of your de-proddings. They were every one of them reasonable deproddings--much more reasonable than the original thoughtless proddings The articles give a good indication Sources for them are available. Unfortunately, you did not add them, and in the present climate of opinion that is not effective. Other editors have added some, and I have added one or two myself. I urge you to proceed carefully, by doing this when you unprod. It will thus prevent your actions from being misunderstood. If any of the BLP deletionists object to anything I have said here , I urge them to discuss it at my talk page. DGG ( talk ) 10:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		The Rescue Barnstar is awarded to people who rescue articles from deletion. This can be independent of or in cooperation with the Article Rescue Squadron. This barnstar is awarded to Power.corrupts for his continual, diligent efforts to save prodded articles. Ikip ^{Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):}_{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 09:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I said you're being disruptive Ikip. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 12:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just say this comment. 5 editors gave Scott MacDonald 5 barnstars for breaking our rules built on consensus which he holds in "utter contempt". (as you have stated also) There were no rules broken here when I gave this barnstar. Ikip 01:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing all prod tags on Wikipedia and voting keep on every AfD regardless of the merits is a way to prevent articles from being deleted. Sadly, those actions would not improve Wikipedia; quite the contrary, and therefore they might warrant a block for WP:POINT. Power.corrupts, do not go on any mass de-prodding sprees unless you fix each article or point out specifically (not some formulaic template) a reason why the prod is wrong (for instance, "references are present, so the tagging was incorrect.") Thank you. Jehochman ^Brrr 13:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly adding prod tags without following WP:BEFORE, i.e. just tagging stuff without making any actual effort to locate and add sources, is a block worthy violation of WP:POINT. Power.corrupts, Ikip, et al., do not allow yourselves to be bullied. It is far more disruptive to delete unilaterally and spam articles with templates instead of pitching in to look for and add sources. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If editors spent at least 5 minutes per article searching for sources before prodding, I'd agree to spend at least 5 minutes searching for sources before de-prodding.[6]--Milowent (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. One shouldn't have to spend as much time fixing disruption as the disruptive editor should have spent before doing it. Mindless mass content edits of any sort leave a long messy trail and it takes good editors a long time to clean up after them. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, but if they spent 5 minutes per article, I bet there would be less of a mess to repair.--Milowent (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of you, thank you for your comments. Wikipedia is not a very nice place to be, contributors are harrassed, admin elitism and abuse is rife. Let's be cognizant, that content contribution and article writing requires both skill and intellect, deletion much less of those two qualities. In a historical perspective, clerical factions have always developed and "rightously" fought each other, and I'm saddened that it will eventually destroy the spirit of the place, and with it the yet unrealized potential of what this eventually might delevop into. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned

With reference to the recent BLP developments and especially your post here [7], I'm concerned about the direction this process seems to be taking. It's especially distressing that there seems to be no all-user notification for this major issue. Please instruct me how to proceed and how to be involved with this issue. Robert K S (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I cannot offer specific guidance on what to do. Symptom treatment is possible, e.g. working on the list here User:Apoc2400/Deletion list, but how to actually stop the book burners and the Malice in Wikiland, I don't know. On a personal level I will spend less time here, to maintain my sanity. It's always useful to watch User talk:DGG. Sorry, that's alll I can say. Power.corrupts (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert KS, Power.corrupts ask me to give you some advice.

You could contact all relevant wikiprojects with the following:

Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}, Currently their is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete all 50,000 articles about a living person without references.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person:Editor Jehochman's position
opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person:Editor Collect's position

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Thank you all for your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. ~~

Let me know if you are interested, I can show you how to do this very quickly, sending a message to each wikiproject in a list in three or less clicks.

The conversation about this will be centralized on my talk page: User_talk:Ikip#How_you_can_help. Ikip 17:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of unref BLP for the Danish project - does a list exist?

yes,

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

It is a bot which creates a list of several pages which need to be cleaned up. Ikip 08:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it worked, I thought it would only give me a list of {{Cleanup}} tagged articles, but it provides a full listing of everything. Nice. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia Talk:Article Incubator. There are several tools we are discussing to cross reference Unreferenced BLPs and any category you want, here is one: Cat scan Ikip 10:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thx, look into it later, must leave now. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusive invitation

Power.corrupts, Wikipedia:Wikiproject new user welcome wants you!

We are currently asking for concrete, constructive proposals on how to avoid the deletion of 48,000 articles created by 17,500 editors through sourcing.

These constructive proposals will then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Please help us:

>> User:Ikip/Wikipedia:Wikiproject new user welcome <<
For now, participation on this userpage is by invitation only.

Talkback

Hello, Power.corrupts. You have new messages at MBisanz's talk page.
Message added 15:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

^Bongo_matic 15:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...this ongoing BLP madness..."

You talk about that on mbizanz' talk page. Would you care to explain that to me in a couple of words? I haven't been keeping up with what happens on wikipedia for months; most thankfully, ¨¨ victor falk 04:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See you talk page Power.corrupts (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice handle~!

No offence to you but it absolutely is a good handle... reminds me of what comes after it: "... absolute power corrupts absolutely." Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, ads dlong is't notd width d - and the direction~. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Winther

Hi there. Just wanted to inform you that I have contested your PROD of this article. I've located two sources (one of them admittedly in Danish) which seem to assert notability of the person. Favonian (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. There is poor online access to Danish media, there is a central database with 30+ mio articles, but the articles and even the search engine is hidden behind a pay-wall. The search interface is "proprietary" and searches are slow. It is peculiar why I had zero hits on this guy in that system, may have been inappropriate use of double quotes, I trying, but cannot reproduce the error. Found some more refs and added to the article. I'm pleased that poor PRODs are picked up by other editors. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note re Den Store Danske Encyklopædi online version

Why are you using another user created encyclopedia as the only source for Poul Schlüter and Mimi Jakobsen? That is an explicit violation of both the WP:BLPSPS policy and the sourcing standard and I would expect you to stop doing so in the future. MBisanz ^talk 08:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the online version of the 20 volume Den Store Danske Encyklopædi, written by a staff of about 4,000 academic experts. Since its completion in 2001 they have experimented with various ways to keep up with IT developments, and they have since 2009 opened up for contributions from registered users. This not make it "another user created encyclopedia", and editorial oversight of content is maintained, anything else would be silly not to protect the original investment in the paper encyclopedia. Could you 1) try to WP:AGF, 2) do basic and minimal fact checking before you post messages on my page, 3) keep Viridia on a leash as I now see that he is reverting my sourcing. And to both of you, try to be helpful, Poul Schlüter was one of our longest serving prime ministers, perhaps you might even add source or two, and Mimi Jakobsen has also played key role in Danish politics. This would be contructive work, as opposed to what you are presently doing. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Den_Store_Danske_Encyklop.C3.A6di. MBisanz ^talk 06:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to move the discussion to that noticeboard. I commented there as well. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your deletions of that source in the articles you edited. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

As you can see, I am quite willing to be accommodating. But for your part - I would much appreciate a change in tone and an avoidance of CAPS - it will go very very far towards an attempt at fostering a polite and positive dialogue in the future. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cirt (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your RfA Participation

Power.corrupts - Thanks for your participation in my recent successful RfA. Although you reluctantly did not express confidence or trust in me, the community did and as you are an equal part of that community, deFacto your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceguard

Hi Beland, I removed your unexplained merge proposal, please feel free to re-propose but remember to add a reasoned rationale for other editors to relate to. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you oppose the merge? I thought it was obvious that the content is overlapping. -- Beland (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Yes, I oppose. There is some overlap, mostly because Asteroid mitigation strategies is a large messy affair. I believe that we have enough info to have articles on detection and consideration about avoidance (your recent retitle to Asteroid impact avoidance is clearly an improvement). More to the point, there is enough 3rd party coverage, and enough potential, to justify a separate article on Spaceguard. On a general note, many merge efforts lead to massive clumsy articles, difficult to maintain, and worse, difficult to read to the average hurried reader who has a specific information need. Try to figure out what a Lancet arch is, for instance. I would suggest splitting Asteroid impact avoidance up into sub-articles, leaving it at as an overview main-article, directing the reader to other relevant articles. I regret, I cant afford assistance to this creative task, as I use whatever time I can spend here to source BLPs and do other last minute fire fighting to prevent valuable material from being deleted, this is where my contributions have the highest marginal return on effort right now. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I copied your advice to Talk:Asteroid impact avoidance for those with more time than either of us to ponder. -- Beland (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Osladil

Hi, You was left me message on my talk page. I was investigate again and these links: 1, 2 seems to be that it is right information- they plays in pornographic movies. There are two proofs: Lukas Osladil height=173cm and date of his born (June 04, 1980). You can reply to this disscussion, I will visit it tomorrow. --Zacatecnik (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Politics, Religion and Her (song)

Since you participated in the AFD for this article, I thought you might be interested in a discussion here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your encouragement, I will make sure to create inline citations in the future. Poulsen (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people#Sweeping the waves back into the ocean - misleading indicators

In addition to adding more BLPs to the list everyday, I have caught other deletion advocates following my tracks and re-tagging articles I had removed them from. The IMDB situation on the talk page is a big chunk of that.Trackinfo (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm appalled that a number of editors, oh so concerned about poor BLP sourcing, could not dream of lifting a finger fixing issues themselves. "Somebody else", you know, should do it. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Power.corrupts! If there is any consensus at at all, it is that the entire discussion has become a tangled confusion, and as a result both proponents and opponents of the issues under discussion are abandoning ship. None of us want this. It is still not clear which way consensus will fall and your contributions to the discussion are invaluable. However, In an attempt to keep the policy discussion on an even track, some users have decided to start the ball rolling for clarity by creating special workshop pages. The first of these is for the technical development of a template at WT:BLP PROD TPL in case policy is decided for it . The taskforce pages are designed keep irrelevant stuff off the policy discussion and talk page, and help a few of us to move this whole debate towards a decision of some kind or another. The pages will be linked in a way that watchers will still find their way to them. This move is not intended to influence any policy whatsoever; It is to keep the discussion pages focussed on the separate issues. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 08:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Power.corrupts. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John Jirus

I've removed the PROD from this article because of the complexity of the situation — when we have a lot of references given for an article, and when we have the possibility that multiple people are merged into one, I think it best to take an article to AFD. I'm not making a statement of "this shouldn't be deleted at all"; it's simply "this shouldn't be prodded". Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your comment on my talk page

"I just want to say that if you have the time, energy etc, etc, I would appreciate a ping on my talk page in such cases."

I would love too, except I don't want to be accused of canvassing, so I must be careful who I contact, and how I contact them. Okip 02:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol Hill Baby-Sitting Co-op

Hey, this is probably years too late, but thanks for starting the Capitol Hill Baby-Sitting Co-op article. I love that allegory. I've been working on the page a little myself.--Dark Charles (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Good luck. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Radio-operated bulldozer outside Chernobyl.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Radio-operated bulldozer outside Chernobyl.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Evacuation of Pripyat.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Evacuation of Pripyat.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

...for your kind words written in the closing hours of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Police. Your points were very well made toward the systemic bias of en.Wikipedia, and it might have been noted by the closer that the nominator's concerns WERE being addressed... despite the fact that in those last seven hours since your improvements, none of the delete votes revisited the article or the discussion. Myself, and in acknowledgement of the everpresent English bias, am at least trying to create and source a spot where the director's films could be listed. And please, you are quite welcome to visit User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Amayo Uzo Philips and make whatever additions and sourcings you are able, for the stronger his article can become, the greater opportunity to finally build upon that long neglected Nigerain film industry. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added content and refs from newspapers located at three continents. Just retrieved the stuff in my cache: BBC (UK) [8], The Nation (New York) [9], and the Observer (Gambia) [10], probably as good as it gets for a corny, low budget, though apparently hugely popular, Nigerian film. Cirt, the closing admin, said the magical words, The result was delete. "The result" ... (tsk). I'm not genuinely surprised, this reflects the general attitude around here, and he probably gets some sort of weird personal satisfaction from deleting content. Just glanced at his edit history, over the span of an euphoric 5-6 minutes he closed an astonishing 33 AfDs, all as delete. HAH, gross, yeah, beyond pedagogical reach. As I said, I'm voting with my feet, sorry to decline your invitation. Bye. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the links. Thank you much. They will be helpful. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ternary plots

Hi, Really liked your flammability diagram in the "Ternary Plots" article! BTW, what software did you use to generate it? Thanks! 129.105.201.48 (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)laxxy[reply]

File:Radio-operated bulldozer outside Chernobyl.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Radio-operated bulldozer outside Chernobyl.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 19:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mindless, stupid, ignorance-driven, undiscussed, and non-oversighted deletion Power.corrupts (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your noble run on Wiki, retired one

I randomly ran across your account today, and in the oft chance that you ever again peek at your talk page, THANK YOU for your endless efforts in combating laziness and the trigger happy deletionists who seem allergic to research. Your patience must have been enormous, and I can only hope that a few other editors have learned from your example and managed to continue your efforts. You made Wikipedia a better place. Kudos, and enjoy your hard-earned, hopefully much less stressful post-Wiki existence. Sloggerbum (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt ^talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be a newbie, a good friend, someone you have had disagreements with in the past, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

How television works listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect How television works. Since you had some involvement with the How television works redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GZWDer (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Metrophlebitis

The article Metrophlebitis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dictionary article

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rathfelder (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Heinrich Himmler and Gudrun Burwitz.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Heinrich Himmler and Gudrun Burwitz.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Mary Douglas (1921–2007) young in Africa.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Mary Douglas (1921–2007) young in Africa.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:50 EURO Gold Coin - Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis - Austria.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:50 EURO Gold Coin - Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis - Austria.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Dashain!

Namaste, Power.corrupts, and Happy Dashain!

WikiProject Nepal wishes you a wonderful Dashain filled with joy, love, and happiness.

Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great Dashain! Cheers.

Message sent by CAPTAIN MEDUSA on behalf of WikiProject Nepal.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis probably 1850-1860.jpg

The file File:Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis probably 1850-1860.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Semmelweis next to table 1857.jpg

The file File:Semmelweis next to table 1857.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dansk tilbagetrækning fra EU / Danish withdrawal from the European Union

Can you support this page https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansk_tilbagetr%C3%A6kning_fra_EU ? Because after some time it could be deleted "Maskinoversættelse og/eller tvivlsomt indhold" "Denne side virker ikke som en encyklopædisk artikel". On this page you can see what was accepted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union. Wname1 (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ann Farholt

The article Ann Farholt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability tag for a decade. The first two sources listed are a tabloid newspaper, so probably aren't WP:RS. Very little evidence that she meets WP:MUSICBIO.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. EddieHugh (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been pruned from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Nepal/Members list.

Hi Power.corrupts! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Nepal/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 1 year.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Nepal/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]