User talk:Retired username/Archive7

Archived.

My adminship is now up

Thanks again so much for nominating me. I've accepted and answered the questions. I'm ready for the ride. :) Cheers! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious. Are there any rules or guidelines about informing other users about my admin nomination? I want to make sure anything I do is above board. Thanks! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't suggest it, people think of it as campaigning. It's completly okay to put up a notice on your user page, maybe even on your user talk page (not sure about that though) - but it should just mention that you're running, not be a "vote for me!" type thing. Anything further is probably going to be frowned upon. --W.marsh 03:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across this in the Guide for Reviews for Adminship -- My eyeballs must have jumped over that part before. Yeah, I will not do anything that would be seen as campaigning. I did have a funny feeling about it, but I was afraid I would be putting myself at a disadvantage if I didn't do what others might do. Thanks for your help. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand-Israel relations

I understand that having the template longer than three hours technically violates policy, but I wish you had warned me on my talkpage prior to editing the article. In the future, because I like to use the inuse template, please let me know on my talkpage before you remove the template if I go over 3 hrs. Respectfully, Republitarian 01:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Taylor article

Hey, I was hoping to get the Jerry Taylor article unprotected so I could turn it into a disambig page. I'm going to create the Jerry Taylor (game designer) article and was hoping to link him from the main Jerry Taylor page. Thanks! --Fxer 03:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if he's the only Jerry Taylor the page should probably be moved to Jerry Taylor. At any rate I've deleted the "deleted page" notice so that axes the protection too. --W.marsh 03:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, but this Jerry Taylor doesn't show up anywhere near the top of a Google search etc..., there are apparently tons of Jerry Taylor, none of them famous enough to control the "Jerry Taylor" article. I figure we might as well start it as a disambig because it will grow into one from my preliminary research :P --Fxer 03:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe he is the most famous Jerry Taylor, he is #1 in the google search. Apparently he is also director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute. You learn something new every day! --Fxer 03:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can still do the pagemove if you like (not sure if non-admins can do such a move or not). --W.marsh 03:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, do you think you could remove protection from the Jerry Taylor talk page? It is still locked down :) Thanks again! --Fxer 19:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wangi/RFA

Thanks for your support on my RfA. Give me shout if I can be of help. Thanks/wangi 00:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Alhambra High School, Martinez CA

I think you may have deleted my article on Alhambra H.S. in Martinez CA and rerouted it to another article about a different Alhambra High School. These are actually different articles; one school is located in Alhambra CA (southern CA) and the other is in Martinez CA (northern CA). I'm new to wikipedia, so I'm not sure how to repost the article... Can you help me to clear this problem up? Thanks

--Jankynoname 00:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, at a glance they seemed really similar (founded in the same year and so on). I've restored the article and moved it to Alhambra High School (Martinez, California), which is technically more correct name. --W.marsh 00:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show (2 nomination)

I would like to ask you to reconsider your close. I feel strongly that the keeps did not address the question of OR, namely that the information was not derived from reputable sources about Limbaugh's jargon, but rather from listening to the show. Vast majority of keep arguments were of the "show is important" sort, and some of the IP's to whom you've given credit are surely one person. I recognize that there is some worthy material there, as per my nom, but this article is an eyesore. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will obviously not take this to DRV since your close was quite plausible, so if you refuse, that'll be the end. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have something of a point, looking at the sources none really seem to confirm any of the jargon as much as I seem to have thought. Perhaps I should have left it open longer for an admin willing to walk into the buzzsaw of what would have certainly been a highly controversial delete, but it had been open for 11 days (!) already. At this point DRV might actually be a good option... reversing myself at this point would frankly be awkward and probably lead to even more confusion and uncertainty. I am still thinking about it, but a reversal seems unlikely, sorry... it is/was a tough situation. --W.marsh 03:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha... What would I ask for at DRV? "ZOMG Rouge Admin refused to perform highly controversial deletion! Overturn and Delete!!1!" ROFL... - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wealthtrust

Hello, I asked for a review of your close of the WealthTrust article. The review is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 21. Cheers, trialsanderrors 03:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Music Prize

Thanks for capitalising the title of the article - I wanted to do this myself, but wasn't entirely sure how to do so. Cheers Tpth 06:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Henschel

I've added the link for Melissa Schuman (his wife) to the Brandon Henschel. Please let me know if I did it correctly. Also would be so kind as to remove the 'link' box? (I don't know how to...I'm still new at this) Thanks again for everything.

Tamara

Done. In the future you can feel free to remove the box yourself, FYI. --W.marsh 01:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Campbell

I see that you just speedy-deleted Paris Campbell. This was a perfectly correct thing to do, but it might have been better to have userfied the article instead. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question

I see you are online editing and had a question while looking at new pages because I was unsure what to do. Someone created a page Bill Hasselman which is the incorrect spelling of the name and there is already an article for Bill Haselman. In this case I just put a redirect on the prior article to redirect it to the correct one. Is this what an editor is supposed to do? I guess more of a general question, if someone creates an article that is incorrectly spelled that has content but there is already a correctly spelled article for that subject then what do we do with the new one. I mean if the new article is a very incorrect spelling (like had Hasssssllleman) what do you do? Thanks in advance. DrunkenSmurf 02:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, redirects from plausible typos of pagenames have always been accepted. Implausible typos can generally be deleted. But in this case it seems plausible... so no harm. A redirect takes like... 30 bytes of server space, and they have terabytes to burn, so as they say "Redirects are cheap". There's more at WP:RFD - specifically see "When should we delete a redirect?". --W.marsh 02:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for your help and for pointing me in the right direction. It seemed like the right thing to do but I figured I would make sure in case it came up again. DrunkenSmurf 02:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GIen's RfA: Thank you!

W.marsh for your Support! I I feel truly humbled & honored by your support in my RfA, which closed at 90 / 5 / 0. Thank you! If you need me for anything, just say the word. For now however, just like Mr Potter here: My mop & I shall thwart all evil :) IThank you once again my friend. GIen

PS: YES YOU'RE RIGHT HARRY POTTER USES A BROOM! (BUT GOOD MOPS ARE HARD TO FIND!!)

Appreciate your support - look forward to working with you!!! - GIen 06:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two users using templates that belong in articles

User:WIKISCRIPPS 07 and User:Firsfron/TV Markets 2 are two examples of users who are using templates that belong in the main space, and thus these two user pages are showing up in article categories. Is there a normal approach for dealing with this kind of thing? I want to be able to ask them to remove the templates (due to guideline or policy x) or have an admin request them to do so. Please advise. Thanks! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in somewhat similar situations, where people are using a template for decoration or instruction and thus putting a page in a category it shouldn't be in, I've subst'd the template and then removed the category manually. It's a reasonable thing to do, in my opinion, since user pages shouldn't be in most categories. And people get to keep the actual box where they want it. Not really sure what/if there is an official policy, but this seems like a reasonable compromise. --W.marsh 01:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I went ahead and did surgery on the first one, as the template inclusions appeared to be casual, and in the second one, the user appeared to possibly be working on a new page (or at least some kind of serious work), so I just asked them to deal with it one way or another. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Childrens' World Magazine

Hi, I believe the name should be Children's World Magazine, with the apostrophe before the s, and not after, like you renamed : Children is already plural. I am not sure how to go back to the original title though. Could you verify and help? Cheers, Sdsouza 10:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the original title was a typo. It's at Children's World Magazine which should be correct. --W.marsh 14:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Thanks for the move. Sdsouza 15:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

Thanks so much for your support on my RFA, which closed successfully this morning with a result of (64/3/3). I will be stepping lightly at first trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! NawlinWiki 11:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC) talk contribs[reply]

Copyvio revisions to remove: Aron Pumnul, etc.

I have edited the articles

Aron Pumnul
Andrei Muresianu (which is now a redirect to an article with the correct spelling of the name)
Culver Community High School
Gary Grimshaw
Hunter Irrigation

so as to remove copyvios. Could you remove the earlier copyvio versions of these articles? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- and also Ion Ionescu de la Brad TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --W.marsh 22:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enghelab Stadium (Karaj) and Shiroudi Stadium

Hello, do you know how to get rid of the Enghelab stadium redirect to Shiroudi Stadium. This is a mistake as the stadiums are completely different and in diffrerent cities. Shiroudi stadium should be redirected to Shahid Shiroudi stadium, which is just another variation of it's name. I am only asking because I saw you were the last person to edit the page. Thanks.

Nokhodi 18:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please link to what articles you're referring to, exactly? I am kind of confused. Better yet, just fix whatever... most likely I was trying to fix bad redirects or something. Thanks. --W.marsh 18:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enghelab Stadium (Karaj). I fixed it though, sorry for the trouble.

Xtreme iTalk

FYI, User:Taylorhewitt, whose vanity page (Talk:Taylor Hewitt) was recently deleted, has once again removed the prod from Xtreme iTalk ... is there some way to protect the main page and still let him make comments for improvement on the discussion page? (I'm too new at this to understand how all of the magicks work.) --Dennette 19:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I know Wikipedia is hard to figure out at first. PRODs can be removed by anyone, no problem there, so I've gone ahead and listed it at WP:AFD - and this tag can't be removed by just anyone. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xtreme iTalk now. If he should remove the AfD tag, it can be put back on, and the page protected if need be. --W.marsh 19:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.sport.football.college

I'd be more than willing to discuss Rec.sport.football.college with you from a few different perspectives. I wrote a decent paper about the group, and as a long time participant in the conversations.

you can send me mail at drjudsjr At verizon dot net. I'd be more than happy to cite reference materials and such as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjudsjr (talk • contribs)

I'd probably support inclusion, like I said, if an article legimately asserting importance is written, with a source or two. I don't have time to write it right now, but any links to a good source would be appreciated... you can mention them on my user page or by e-mail (click "e-mail this user" on my talk page). Thanks. --W.marsh 19:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kentucky-stub

71.2.16.16 is continuing to make changes to this stub without any discussion whatsoever. I would prefer not to jump to blocking this user, but if this user can somehow be talked to, I would appreciate it. Or, if blocking would be the right course, I would appreciate that too. Thanks! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified it to be consistant with other state stubs. If the guy reverts again without discussing I will report him at WP:3RR I guess. Thanks. --W.marsh 23:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had changed it at an earlier time to use the state shape, and this anonymous user changed it to the state flag. The reason I want to use the state shape is because the flag is indistinguishable at that size from many other flags, but the state's shape is unmistakable. I don't think consistency is the issue here (unless you can point me to discussion where that was decided), but what Kentuckians want to use. Therefore, this stub's look should be managed by WikiProject Kentucky, as it's now considered to be a part of the project. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trustafarian

Thanks for letting me know. Canderson7 ^(talk) 02:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teke's RfA thanks

Thank you for your support of my RfA, which has passed with a final tally of 76/1/1. With this overwhelming show of support and approval I am honored to serve Wikipedia in the task charged to me and as outlined in my nomination. Happy editing to you! Teke^(talk) 17:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page

The page is incomplete, please reconsider your deletion. As soon as it is complete the world will see how it asserts the important of individuals in the salt lake valley/

Uh... what page? I'm not a psychic. --W.marsh 22:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CodeBlack Entertainment talk

Hi; I noticed you were the one who moved the page to the correct capitalisation; do you know what happened to the contents of the talk page? Did they fail to get moved? Or did they somehow disappear before that? Anchoress 08:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the talk page was deleted before I made the move. [1] is where the deleted comments are. Do you want me to move them to the new page (requires a history merge)? --W.marsh 14:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee that's really strange. Is there any way of figuring out why that happened or who did it? I guess it doesn't really matter, I don't think I said anything profound, but I was just curious. Thanks for checking anyways, don't bother merging. Cheers, Anchoress 03:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Steinbrenner

To save you time and effort, you might want to find a source saying $1.7 Million for the List of Major League Baseball principal owners. Kingjeff 16:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would that save me time and effort? It sounds like it would involve about the opposite. --W.marsh 16:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a choice of you wanting to change it a billion times or finding something to back up your claim just once. Someone will always find a reason to change it back to $10 Million. I'm not trying to be critical or anything. I'm just trying to help you avoid those assholes who complain about every little thing. Kingjeff 16:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comair Flight 5191

Thanks for the note. It supremely bothers me when people add in ridiculous links, especially to websites like that.

I should really establish an account... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.217.154 (talk • contribs)

Chilkur Balaji

Hi, you've tagged the above as a copyvio from http://experts.about.com/e/c/ch/Chilkur_Balaji.htm. However this site is a part-WP mirror and mentions it at the end of the page along with GFDL attribution. Pl. be careful in future and check if a site is WP mirror. btw, I did a bit more investigation and found that the article is indeed a copyvio from another URL, http://www.chilkurbalaji.org/History.htm. I've changed the URL accordingly on the copyvio listing and the article page. Interestingly, this article has been deleted thrice previously, twice as copyvios. I'd probly be writing a copyviofree version in the next couple of weeks. --Gurubrahma 06:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tag hundreds of articles as copyvios... I am careful. Mistakes happen. Thanks for fixing this. --W.marsh 14:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bot update

Hi, can you update your bot so it uses the new format of by-date templates, as they now have optional parameters, e.g. {{Wikify|September 2006}} rather than {{Wikify-date|September 2006}}, though the old ones do still work. Also, it's best to update all the by-date tags at once (as AWB does automatically), this saves editting each article multiple times to update each by-date template. thanks in advance. Martin 19:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will use the new format from now on. But I'm a bit confused as to what you mean by "it's best to update all the by-date tags at once". Is this something I'm not doing, but should? I'm using AWB so if it does that automatically, it should be doing it, right? --W.marsh 23:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, that did't quite make sense did it ;-), what I meant was that when an article has, for example, {{cleanup}} and {{wikify}} it's good to change them both at once, as I've noticed a few bots don't, and go through making multiple edits to each article to change each template individually. AWB does this in the "Auto tag" feature in the newest version. thanks Martin 23:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of Masssiveego

Hi W.Marsh,

Regarding your re-block of user:Masssiveego. You're a good user, and a good administrator. I feel, however, that you have overlooked some important things regarding the incident.

First off, there was apparently no warning for this block. here is the block message only. We're supposed to warn users before blocking them, aren't we? There was no warning. Even random IP vandals get a warning.

Second, according to WP:BLOCK, "Disruption — For dynamic IPs, such blocks should last 24 hours. For static IPs and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for increasing lengths of time." Since his block log shows nothing prior, I'm assuming he hasn't been blocked before. Therefore, isn't a 168 hour block somewhat excessive for the first block? A friend of mine, who will remain nameless, made some personal attacks and caused quite a bit of disruption, but because he was a long-time editor, he received a 12 hour block. 168 hours is considerably longer than that. Furthermore, when you re-instated the block, you didn't subtract the original time he'd been blocked, meaning he will actually be blocked for about 176 hours.

Also, here you state:

Uh, I didn't know he was talking about doing it, so the accusation that I waited until it happened is just untrue. I don't see every edit on Wikipedia... I can only respond to what I do see, when I see it. If someone does something bad, the fact that they quietly talked about it somewhere a week ago and no one objected is absolutely not a "get out of jail free" card. That's just not how things operate.

In fact, he talked about it just yesterday, not in some obscure place, but right on the RFA talk page, in this thread, which you presumably read, since you replied to it. I am not saying you purposely waited for him to create the RFA; I'm stating he made his intentions known, in a very public area, and wasn't discouraged from starting his RFA.

I am always unwilling to remove the block of a well-respected administrator such as yourself. That sort of thing only leads to wheel wars. However, I would ask that you reconsider this block, or at least the extreme length of this block, given that this user was encouraged to create the RFA, and received no objections when he spoke of it beforehand, received no warning before being blocked, and got a full week block for something that, according to policy, should only have been 24 hours. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 18:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just pathetic. You want the troll? You got him. --W.marsh 18:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I never saw his posts about running for RfA. I try to ignore his comments, as we all should do with trolls. --W.marsh 18:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, I believe you, Marsh. I do. Thanks for at least considering other admins' views on this matter. I noted you've unblocked him. If he continues disturbing Wikipedia, he can always be blocked again. I know you're upset, but I hope you can maybe understand where some of these objections are coming from. For my part, I certainly see your points, too. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 18:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't know anything about dealing with trolls. You've gained a troll and lost a good contributer. Nice work. --W.marsh 18:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with trolls, both here and on other sites. I don't think you know enough of my background to make such an assertion. You're obviously angry, so I won't leave a longer message. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 18:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pendennis Club

On 4 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pendennis Club, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for the article W.marsh. I'll have to try an Old Fashioned. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 18:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't

Take a few days off if you need, but don't let those whose priorities are screwed up chase you away. Please stay. Nandesuka 22:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W, please return soon. We can't keep losing good editors this way. If others's priorities are screwed up, it only means we need you more. Best regards, Kasreyn 00:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a good admin. Although there is a possibility that our blocks may be counterproductive, they were done in good intent and spirit. Do not worry, I have been targetted by banned socks for RfC, and get sbuse regularly, simply ignore it if you feel that you are correct. All the best. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

Good luck in your future endeavours. You did good work here, and I'm confident that you'll do good work wherever else you end up. --Cyde Weys 23:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't leave.

Title is self-explanatory. I've sent you an email which is a bit more wordy. JoshuaZ 00:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also sent an e-mail. This is not good. Metamagician3000 05:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment censored [2]--Pussy Galore 18:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

biggott

he said "homosexuals" are not normal, dude.. if thats not biggotly i dont know what is, and its also offensive to say homosexual as opposed to gay. Qrc2006 01:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

(copied from my talk page)

"If you think I'm so awful"... which would be apparent from when I said, "It is not at all my intent to say that you are a 'bad user'." ??

"...please, go ahead and just say I shouldn't be an admin"... over one action which I disagree with? Why? Cyde does five things I disagree with a week and I supported his RfA. :]

W.marsh you seem to be viewing this disagreement in ways wholly different than I intend. I don't think you should be de-sysoped or RfC'd or... anything. I disagree with you. That doesn't mean I 'value him more than you' or 'like trolls' as you have been saying. It means I don't think a one week block was warranted and I oppose personal attacks as a matter of course. If Jimbo were to go after someone and call them a troll and block them for something I thought unjustified I would disagree with him the same way... indeed, I actually did in the 'pedophile userbox' incident. Before I became an admin. He reversed the block too. No doubt it's my winning personality, right? --CBD 01:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you are so affronted by this and I hope you will stay. --CBD 01:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recall

I noticed W.marsh is in the category of admins open to recall. Well, I would like to recall him..... back to the project. Yes, I mean W.marsh you need to come back to Wikipedia. ASAP.

Just trying for a slight bit of levity here... --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly concur with those who hope you'll rejoin us. It makes little difference whether a problematic user is officially blocked or just ignored in his blatherings. It makes a great deal of difference when a quality editor and admin leaves us. Newyorkbrad 00:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, please come back W.marsh! You were a great, thoughtful editor and we really want you back! Take a WikiBreak at let yourself calm down. —Mets501 (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not really an old fashioned, but a stiff drink usually helps get over wiki problems. Hope you enjoy your break and hope to see you back soon. -- Samir धर्म 15:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay

Take a nice wikibreak, but don't go. I really don't want to add you to my Desysop list :(. NoSeptember 23:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Back

I hope this means you are here to fight the good fight against trolls and vandals. Nandesuka 01:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't know if I'm back, really, for a while I felt like I was a vandal/troll (apparently that would raise my value to Wikipedia in the eyes of some, so why resist it?). Anyway... I've never lost my deep enthusiasm about the article namespace and all that represents... it's just the nastiness and backwardness of the "other" areas of Wikipedia that was quite upsetting when I finally encountered it firsthand. I've voluntarilly had myself de-sysopped until I figure out what I'm doing... so let's just see where this goes. Thanks for your note. --W.marsh 01:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for at least thinking about staying with us. There's recent precedent that re-sysop-hood is automatic after a voluntary step-down, so your options are open.

With regard to the trolls, I don't think that any significant fraction of serious Wikipedians wants the trolls to win. There can, however, be good-faith disagreements about the best strategy for combatting them. I'd enjoy discussing these issues with you if and when you think you might be in the mood to do so.

In the meantime, you are probably right that contributing to mainspace will do both you and the project some good. I took my first trip to Louisville in April; wonderful city, would enjoy reading more about it. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you're back or not. Welcome back nonetheless. :) Garion96 (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pile-on welcome back!!! I was losing hope when you blanked your talk page earlier, glad you changed your mind! If you ever need some help, or someone to chat with just to blow off some steam, feel free to let me know, either here or on IRC. Cheers! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry E. Abramson

Since I view your editing as trustworthy and unopinionated, I ask for your views about the placement and mention of religion at Talk:Jerry_E._Abramson. Chris24 05:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question from a novice

Hi! I'm pretty new to the wikiworld and I was wondering if you could clarify something for me (you seem to know what you're doing!). I recently added an entry on Burning Deck, a non profit publisher, and I see that it's been tagged as having "few or no articles" as links. But it seems to have around ten links to other entries. What consitutes too few links for an entry of this size? I want to make sure I'm meeting the community standards...Thanks! Benzocane 16:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the template in question refers to a lack of links TO that article from OTHER articles. Incoming links will let people interested in related topics find the article (if there aren't incoming links, they probably won't). You can view what articles link to a given article by clicking the "What links here" button on the left sidebar, here is a link to what links to the article you mentioned: [3], currently just a list of articles without links that I maintain. So create 1+ good incoming links, and remove the tag... it's that simple. Thanks for your interest in improving WP! --W.marsh 16:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS! I appreciate your help. Benzocane 17:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confederation of Hackers

Some time ago you tagged Confederation of Hackers linkless. Now one of its links is to its deletion debate. Anton Mravcek 17:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"block people for things they are doing themselves"

Hi, I've been following this discussion for quite a while, and while I have generally refrained from commenting to avoid the "piling-on" effect, I was sufficiently disturbed by this last exchange that I felt impelled to interject. On CBDunkerson's talk page you cite the above quote from him, followed by your analysis that "quotes like that are really not good." I have thought about this for quite a while and I can't seem to understand what you are saying. You should not block people for things they are doing themselves? You should block people for things others are doing? You should block people based not on their actions but their admin-status? I would be interested in hearing what you meant, so I can better understand the conflict here. Thank you. —Nate Scheffey 21:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The implication is that admins are no better than the people they're blocking. To compare people who've made 20,000+ productive edits, written featured articles, etc. to blatent trolls is just insulting and sad. Wikipedia should thank good editors and tell trolls to leave... we shouldn't look for every reason to keep the trolls and every reason to critisize the good editors. --W.marsh 23:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from my talk page) I disagree that that is the implication, and I certainly don't think anyone is honestly trying to "look for every reason to keep the trolls." I think "block people for what they are doing themselves" implies that admins are not above the law, and if they engage in personal attacks, continued incivility or other blockable offenses they should face the same consequences as any editor. —Nate Scheffey 23:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree with you, Nscheffey, that admins aren't (and should not be) "above the law." But Wikipedia is a pragmatic place. We judge editors by their output. That's largely a question of balance. Editors who have submitted thousands of articles, and have thousands of productive edits, are more likely to be forgiven a slip up if they have one bad day and call someone a wifebeating childhater. Whereas someone who shows up, creates a bunch of meaningless stubs, gets simple facts wrong, appears to be trolling, and then calls someone a wifebeating childhater on his 98th edit is much, much less likely to be cut any slack.

Some people argue that that's not fair, but I'd say that's the essence of fairness.

Admins shouldn't be given any special slack in this regard. But since admins do tend to be editors with thousands upon thousands of high quality edits, that's the slack they get. And let me be clear: they deserve that slack, just like the non-admin editor with thousands upon thousands of edits deserves it. Nandesuka 00:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you %100 that judging editors on their contribution history is wise, pragmatic, and fair. Personally, when I encounter an editor I've never run into the first thing I do is take a look at their contribs to get a sense of their impact on the project, and I certainly give more creedence to the arguments and opinions of those with numerous quality edits. However, I don't believe that being a valued contributor or an admin makes one's actions immune from question. Discussing the justification, application, and length of a block is normal and to be encouraged, and having one's block questioned is not an attack on them as a admin, editor or person. No one ever suggested W. Marsh should be blocked, or that his actions were in any way comparable with Masssive's. The debate was over the block, not the person, and unfortunately I think it became a personal issue. I agree that admins and valuable editors should be cut slack, but that doesn't imply a moratorium on civil disagreement. —Nate Scheffey 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but with respect to CBD's comments, you can't shake the devil's hand, and then say you're only kidding. CBD was talking, repeatedly about "abuse." In my mind, when you say that someone is committing abuse, you're making a very serious accusation. So I really don't buy for a minute that CBD's comments were civil. They weren't. W.Marsh deserved a degree of trust as a respected editor, and if CBD felt he was being abusive there were about, oh, 6,424,991 ways to deal with that in an appropriate way that allowed for quiet discussion and face-saving. Instead, he started swinging the word "abuse" around on AN/I like an axe, and then had the temerity to act surprised when people point out that he's being incivil. Sorry. I don't buy it.

I've got no beef with anyone who took issue with W.Marsh's block of Masssive simply because we disagree. I disagree with a lot of people about a lot of things. But there are good ways to deal with situations like that, and there are aggressive and stupid ways to deal with it, and CBD chose the latter. That is what people are giving him grief for. Nandesuka 02:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel bad about continuing this discussion on Marsh's talk page (should we move it?) but I have to reply. CBD said the word "abuse" once, speaking in a general sense about admin incivility. When asked if he advocated the defense of trolls, he said it "doesn't matter who the target of the abuse is." While it is possible this could be interpreted to mean Marsh was being abusive, that's a long way from saying "Marsh is guilty of Admin abuse" and a hell of a long way from "swinging the word "abuse" around on AN/I like an axe." Shouldn't an admin be prepared to have their actions debated without it becoming a referendum on their worth as a person? CBD was civil, and discussing a block on the Administrator's Noticeboard is not, in my opinion, an "aggressive and stupid" action. —Nate Scheffey 10:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, my only offense was saying that I thought someone was trolling. That's unfornately a basic thing that we need to say from time to time, if someone is trolling we shouldn't be prevented from stopping them because saying so would be a "personal attack". It's the first time I'd ever said it in 13+ months of editing. If people think I should be blocked for that, I think they're quite misguided, sorry. --W.marsh 00:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd divide it between "proven editors and trolls" rather than "admins and trolls," but with that modification I agree with W.marsh. Nandesuka 23:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, I totally agree with that. Good faith editors write the encyclopedia... trolls don't. --W.marsh 23:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issue of Nacos & articles linked to her

That she has exposed a link between terrorism alerts and Bush's popularity is disturbing to wikipedia editors, including one administrator. Before these individuals removed the links there were references to the Nacos article. Dogru144 23:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry to hear that, I'll look into it... but like it says on the bot's page, no one is required to create incoming links, it's just a suggestion to help the article out. Thanks. --W.marsh 23:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide MEthods deletion

Hey, the suicide methods page is up for deletion. You previously voted for it's deletion before, and I was hoping you would try again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suicide_methods_%283rd_nomination%29 Katie32 (talk • contribs)

Admin

Hi, thank you for the offer of nominating me. I would like to accept but, if possible, not immediately. I still have a few projects I want to finish first, and I am afraid that if I have the admin buttons I would be too busy doing admin work (lot of backlogs) which will make it even harder for me to finish those projects. I already have that problem currently with Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. I just can't leave it full with entries. :) Garion96 (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, just let me know when. --W.marsh 21:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you, W.marsh, for voting on my RFA, which passed 95 to 1. Now that I have the mop, I hope I can live up to the standard, and be a good administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. And thank you for coming back to Wikipedia. —this is messedrocker (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio

Hi, I saw you active on Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. I was wondering if you could have a look at Thomas Eckert for me. I tagged it as a copyvio a while ago, considering it's a copy & paste job from two sources, but someone reverted it (twice) back. Not all the text is a copyvio, still I think enough to warrant the tag. But I could be wrong.... Garion96 (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FU#Text is somewhat vague but really only seems to apply to using attributed quotations, which fits in with my understanding of fair use. Unattributed use of (not quotations from) a text are not really fair use of someones copyrighted work, I would say. I would say that the article is a copyvio and needs to be rewritten, the argument that it's fair use to chop up and not attribute text is incorrect. --W.marsh 00:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. Also, good idea of posting it on Wikipedia talk:Fair use. Garion96 (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Linkless" tagging of Aqueous Wastes from Petroleum and Petrochemical Plants

Rome wasn't built in a day and Wikipedia articles aren't instantaneously linked to articles as soon as they are created. The MarshBot tagged the subject article as "linkless" within 1 hour after the page was created. It takes time to find the articles needing linking to an article. It now has 11 articles linked to it, and so I removed the "linkless" tag. Is there some way to make the MarshBot cognizant of when an article was created and wait at least 48 hours before tagging it as "linkless"?? Regards, - mbeychok 21:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Links to disambiguating pages (A)

Am I overlooking something, or did you create 6 doubles on the A-page? Then please take those out. Kind regards — SomeHuman 21 Sep 2006 00:10 (UTC)

No, just some random error. You could have removed them yourself though if you went to the trouble of counting them up, but I've gone ahead and done it. --W.marsh 00:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed so odd, perhaps I really had overlooked something; or you might be in the process of sorting and filtering doubles and might meanwhile have saved... — SomeHuman 21 Sep 2006 00:26 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what happened. There is a good deal of automation in how I add pages to that list, so I imagine I just added the 6, forgot about it, then added them again or something like that. --W.marsh 00:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Associação Gaita-de-fole

Do you think this couldn´t be considered anymore as an orphan article? Thanks! Tonyjeff 02:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've got ahead and removed the orphan article template. --W.marsh 02:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

I noticed you blanked it, would you like me to delete it for you? Yank sox 02:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll redirect it to my talkpage for now... I prefer that to wandering around with my sig appearing as a redlink. If you want to delete the whiney past revisions, I'd be much obliged, --W.marsh 02:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on redirecting to your talkpage, I was asking more or less if you want the history clean. I'll do that. Yank sox 02:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks. --W.marsh 02:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, problem. I figured, I should be userful at least once. Yank sox 02:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

I've asked a question on your RfA - perhaps you'd be so good as to respond? Thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 21:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked a followup question - sorry to be a pain. --Mcginnly | Natter 02:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Len Tower again

The process wonkism to overturn the AfD decision of Len H. Tower Jr. has been successful, and the new discussion, along with my criticism of the process now being followed, can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard H. Tower Jr. (second nomination). Please note that previous votes/comments are not being taken into account. See you there. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguous links

I noticed that you recently added a link to Portland here. Portland is a disambiguation page as the phrase has many uses including Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine. In the future, could you link the term to one of the articles listed on the disambiguation page, that would be great. As an example, if you're linking to something related to Portland, Oregon, you would input [[Portland, Oregon|Portland]]. Thanks! --Bobblehead 17:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China water crisis

In 2005 you turned China water crisis into a redirect to article that says nothing about the topic. In this way you destroiyed a content of significant importance. Please don't do such things. Mukadderat 04:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a somewhat biased page title, see WP:NPOV. I think that's why I redirected it... plus it was an orphan article that few people would see because of the lack of incoming links. But I felt like it could be better covered at an article whose title wasn't inhernetly tilted towards one viewpoint. --W.marsh 04:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer. It is not NPOV. It is an infortunate reality in many countries of today's world. I detected this page after a noticed that the article "Water crisis" was nominated for candidates to WP:DYK and started some updating. Mukadderat 04:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Board of directors

Thanks for for the preps on the article. Historically, articles with a high legal content don't fare very well on nominations as featured articles (or even as good articles) because they tend to only reflect the laws of one jurisdiction (having been written, usually, by a lawyer qualified in only one jurisdiction). Always happy to receive input from others, but I suspect with the best will in the world it will never make it up to featured article status. Legis 11:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some advise please

Hello. I saw your comment on the thread I started on AN/I and had a question. Frankly, I'm still gaining experience with the noticeboards as far as exactly which to use and when to use them. For example, 3RR is obvious, but I've recently been told to not use AIV for "non-urgent" needs and to use AN/I instead for that purpose. (Note that the previous sentence is just to give perspective on my frame of reference, not to associate this incident with vandalism.) I saw what I perceived as a second occurrence of vote-stacking by an individual and felt that I should report it somewhere so that some action could be taken. I did not characterize it as vandalism and did not propose any specific remediation (although I figured that at a minimum a warning for something was appropriate and that it should factor into the decision at the DRV). If I am interpreting your comment correctly (and please correct me if I am not), I am thinking that you feel that I posted to the wrong board (or perhaps should not have posted at all). I know that you have an extensive background as an admin, so I would really value your recommendation regarding how I should react if faced with a similar situation or if I had the opportunity to "do it over again". I'll monitor here for your response. Thanks. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you think admin action is needed, then come to AN/I (assuming it's not covered by one of the other boards for more specific cases). It's just best to state what action you think is needed though. I wasn't like complaining about your wasting our time at AN/I or anything, sorry if I came off that way. It gets a lot of volume, stuff is archived automatically... even a few legitimately off-topic requests aren't serious problems, and yours was certainly a valid post. --W.marsh 17:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Just to be clear - I wasn't offended, I was just looking to make sure that I didn't do the wrong thing, and I figured that you had a level of experience that you were good to ask. In the future, I'll be more specific about my desired result. Thanks again, and also congratulations on your re-sysop. Too bad I didn't interact with you earlier, I could have thrown another support on the pile before it closed :) --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxman (W.marsh is an admin again)

Yay! Congrats! :) Glen 17:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		A good ol' Kiwi Pav!
		I, Glen give you W.marsh this delicious traditional Kiwi Pavlova I call it admin appetizer, sysop surprise? Deletion dessert? Nah, they all suck - just eat, you deserve it! Glen 17:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, W.marsh, you deserved it. Yanksox 22:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for the support. I had no idea... I figured it would be much more controversial. I should run for b'crat now, huh? Just kidding. Oh yeah, consider this my thanks message... I don't really want to bug everyone on their talk page. --W.marsh 22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're back! Congrats on the shiny new second adminship. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 01:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the janitor's club. Now get back to work with your mop and bucket! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 09:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Congrats! Three days only?? --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 10:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VT-86

You deleted the article VT-86 as a copyvio of [4], but that page is a public-domain work of the US government. Deleting for copyvio requires the identification of a source with an "obvious copyright notice", missing in this case. I have created an undeletion request for this article; please review the undeletion and place your comments there. Cheers, Vectro 01:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were taken directly from VT-10 and VT-86's offical US Navy web site..now if globalsecurity is taking their stuff from them, and copywriting, it is wrong. The link is as follows: https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/tw6/vt10/history.asp https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/tw6/vt86/history.asp 69.48.38.145 19:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Alexander

Are you asserting this subject's notability? Because the creator has not responded to my notes on his talk page. Unless you are asserting notability, then the article indeed meets the qualifications for speedy deletion. — Sampo Torgo ^[talk] @ 14:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh it says he's been published, operates presses and has several books. That consitutes a claim of notability, so the speedy is invalid. I dunno if he meets WP:BIO or not, but that's not what WP:CSD is about... I felt a PROD or AfD would be more appropriate. --W.marsh 15:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardiff West services

I think the AFD banner in Cardiff West services was correct, it was just that weird nomination page that had been created that was incorrect. There is an AfD running still at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services, so if you could look at the reversion of the removal that would be cool. Fiddle Faddle 16:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I think I see what the problem was now. I've put the AfD tag back but it's pointing to the right AfD now. If you feel particularly inclined, you might make sure the other articles all point to the right AfD too. --W.marsh 16:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect they will all survive. Assinine to nominate all 50, I think. And what hard work! I'm simply betting that Cardiff was the rogue simply coz of the editor that created the AfD page Fiddle Faddle 16:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DB question

Hiya, I noticed that you removed the db tag from All For You (Kate Ryan Song), saying that it's not an appropriate candidate for speedy deletion. I have to admit that I'm still a bit confused about speedy deletion criteria, but that particular article seemed to be a pretty clear case, as there was no assertion of notability, and it's about a piece of music that doesn't even exist yet. I've reviewed Wikipedia:Notability (songs) and Wikipedia:Notability (music), and I'm still baffled. Can you please explain your reasoning about why a formal AfD might be required? That will help me to better understand the CSD process, thanks. --Elonka 16:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, speedy deletion in this case applies when there's not an assertion of notability. To me, the assertion that it's a song by an apparently popular singer is an assertion of notability. Meeting Wikipedia:Notability (songs) or not is more a question for AfD or PROD, speedy deletion is about whether it actually asserts anything that's notable, or not. Traditionally these are just turned into redirects to the artist and so on if someone thinks the article is weak, which would appear to be called for in this case. It's a fine point, I admit, but it does serve its purposes (preserving the article history for a future good article, making sure a plausible search term goes to a meaningful target, etc.) --W.marsh 16:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

The WP:VAND policy says that removal of a dispute tag before resolving the problem is vandalism. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 02:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't accusing you of vandalism; I was explaining that I thought I was reverting vandalism. So tell me: which kinds of vandalism am I allowed to use an automatic rollback for, and what kinds of vandalism am I not allowed to use an automatic rollback for? ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 03:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes thank you

thanks for the headz up, but why did you revert my change to "brah"? I live in a surfing town, tis only naturalGreenCommander81 04:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trolling, but perhaps my inquisitive nature is being a bit too blunt. I apologize for any concerns thank you. GreenCommander81 04:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belated

Welacome back, sorry I didn't get a chance to show my support at your recent RfA. You have my support, regardless. Peace! Hamster Sandwich 21:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --W.marsh 21:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question of protocol

Hi, Ideaworks3d (lower case d) was deleted via PROD. Ideaworks3D redirected to it. Since the main article was deleted, I thought the redirect should / could be speedied --- and I stated that both on the talk page and the comments. You removed the speedy. I've placed a PROD on this article (that was a redirect), per your suggestion, but it seems to me that if the target of the redirect is deleted via PROD or AfD then the redirect itself should not have to go through the same process. I'm just trying to learn, I'm fine with whatever the proper process is ... thanks, Brian 15:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)btbakk[reply]

Actually, recreating a PROD'd article counts as contesting the deletion, or at least that's what consensus seems to be. Since this is technically a different article I'll let the PROD stay up... but the article did assert importance ("leading developer of Mobile and Hand Held") so I didn't really feel speedy deletion was a good idea. Anyway, being a recreation of a PROD'd article isn't a reason to speedy delete either. --W.marsh 15:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just went back through all the logs and see what happened. Ideaworks3D was deleted as a copyvio. Then Ideaworks3d was created and Ideaworks3D was created as a redirect to 3d. I Prod'd 3d and it was deleted. I then went back to 3D (not remembering that it was originally deleted as a copyvio) and put a db-empty on it (probably the wrong tag - it was an orphan redirect at that point). Based on all the history, I've removed the PROD and tagged it as a repost of the copyvio material. I hope this is ok. Thanks for your help and your explanations (and your patience!). Brian 15:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

Mike the Rocker

Just looked at page logs and this had previously been deleted in November 2005. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware there was a NN warning tag. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's recreated twice; recommend delete and protection against further recreation. ColourBurst 02:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it's back again with lots of single purpose accounts to defend it to boot. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating this from the talk page of the deleted article (Talk:Mike the Rocker), I know who this is, and it needs to go. How would you feel about deleting the talk page? I'm not going to do it personally because I know there is lots of important discussion on the page. Bobo . 05:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh personally I don't see how important the discussion is for keeping, so I've gone ahead and deleted the page. --W.marsh 13:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little Superstar

Why did you delete that article? It was just being started.

Please see WP:VAIN and WP:BIO, having youtube videos isn't really a claim to notability. Please cite an off-youtube source about this guy's importance and I will restore. --W.marsh 02:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was just kind of making the place, but was going to go into him as an actor in Tamil and Bollywood movies. Thanks.

Veronica Segura

It was not clear to me from the first reading that the actress in question had actually appeared in movie, due to the strange wording of the article. On second view, I understand what the author meant, though I believe the article needs a serious rewrite. ---Charles 02:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]