Jump to content

User talk:SoWhy/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email yesterday, so this is just a little ping in case you don't check that account often. NW (Talk) 17:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I replied to it yesterday (21:03 UTC), check your spam folder ;-) Regards SoWhy 21:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. It did hit my spam folder for some reason. NW (Talk) 22:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

Do you have any tools you'd recommend for me? I know there are a bunch of Twinkle tools, etc. but I'd hate to just copy your monobook without knowing what I was doing. It's ok if you don't have the time right now. :) Enigmamsg 05:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's half the reason I commented my monobook.js. Which tools you want to use and/or might find useful depends on your editing style. If you are using Twinkle for example, some of the scripts I use are not needed. You might just want to browse my monobook and see from my comments whether something is useful to you. I definitely suggest the CloseAFD script, the protection.js if you plan on "hitting" RFPP, CSD Helper if you want to go through speedy deletions and EasyBlock but everything else is a matter of preference. As I said, check my comments and then decide whether it sounds useful to you. If you need anything else, please do not hesitate to ask. Regards SoWhy 06:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sidelight

I don't get Bay window, Fixed window, Picture window, etc all have the same point as Sidelight, so shouldn't they sidelight be apart of the window article as are bay window, and the rest are.--Fire 55 (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please review the criteria for speedy deletion. If there is context, then it cannot be speedy-deleted as not having context. It's pure and simple. If you want to have it deleted, use WP:AFD instead. Regards SoWhy 08:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite full protection

The following articles were fully protected due to edit-warring/content disputes, but there was no discussion on-going on the talk pages and the protection, which generally should not last more than seven days, was left in place for weeks.

I have unprotected these and suggest that in the future it may be best to deal with the editors rather than the page when there is no on-going discussion. لennavecia 19:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Thanks. Sorry, those must have slipped my mind. Regards SoWhy 20:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you be willing to adopt me?

I'm looking for an adopter and you seem a very capable Wikipedian. Would you possibly adopts me to help me with any issues I may have? DotComCairney 18:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I can of course offer to do that but be mindful that I will not offer my advice unless you ask specific questions about specific problems. If you look for someone who teaches you the basics of Wikipedia and such, my adoption will not be helpful to you. There are some adopters who have virtual classrooms and teaching lessons and you might want to seek one of them instead (see Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters). If you think you just need someone to bother with questions whenever you fail to figure out something yourself, then I'd be happy to adopt you. Regards SoWhy 18:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I have knowledge on how to use Wikipedia but I'm very insecure about my edits so I would like someone who I could ask for verification on what I've done. Although don't worry, I would be bothering you 24/7, just every now and again. DotComCairney 20:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Fine with me. First order of business, please remember to use edit summaries with every edit. Regards SoWhy 20:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey SoWhy, I just wanted to stop by and say thank you for all your help and support. I do realize that without your support, my RfA could have easily have been a failure. Having one of the top guys in XfD matters support me, even though it is my weakest area, I think you calmed a LOT of potential opposes. That fact is not lost on me. It may be a while before I try to help much with the CSD and XfD items, but I know that I can come to you for guidance, and that means a LOT to me. Thank you very much! ;) — Ched :  ?  03:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Your praise humbles me. I am happy to see that you managed to pass RFA and I do think you did fine on yourself - you did better than I did, my RFA gained both, more drama and more opposes, so don't sell yourself cheap. Congratulations thus on your new mop, if you need any help in wielding it, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. You might want to look at the monobook.js files of some admins (like mine) and get yourself some scripts to make the job easier. Regards SoWhy 08:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Trying to undestand why the Warrnmabool Rugby Union Club page has been deleted.

Greetings my name is Liam Devlin i created the page

Warrnambool Rugby Union Club. This page is a factual page on Victoria Australia's most southern main land club. The page is important to warrnambool people and to the rugby communitee.

could you please let me know why this has been deleted? If it can be reinstated or what action i can take to get this page active again.

Many thanks

Liam Devlin Warrnmabool Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devlin liam (talk • contribs) 10:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not doubting at all that it's factual, there was just no indication whatsoever why this club should be considered important or significant. Wikipedia has a set of guidelines to determine whether a subject should be included, called notability guidelines. They mostly require significant coverage of the subject by reliable sources. Your article did not provide any indication that the subject at hand, i.e. the club, might meet those guidelines and a quick Google News search did not find any sources either. As such, it was deleted under criterion A7 for speedy deletion. If you can make any credible claim at all that this club is significant on a larger scale, please do so and I will restore the article. Unless you can establish aforementioned notability though, it probably will be deleted again in a community discussion. Regards SoWhy 15:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

wt:rfa thread

Hi SoWhy, you might be interested to read wt:RFA#Lets try to avoid all checking the same things, if only because I named you as one of the inspirations for the thread:) ϢereSpielChequers 19:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed the thread but I have only skimmed over it quickly and not read all messages completely. And as you mistyped my nick, it was not highlighted in the text and I did not see it (I got a script to highlight my name because I want to see whenever people talk about me ). As for the topic at hand, I think you have a good point to ask people to cast more elaborate !votes - unfortunately, you are neither the first to do so nor will you be the last and it will not really change it for most people but if we are lucky, some people will heed your points and start making more elaborate !votes. Regards SoWhy 19:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Starship Troopers 3: Marauder ruling -- please clarify/explain, if you would, thanks!

Hi SoWhy,

I was just wondering how 9 separate incidents of vandalism in less than a week by the same dynamic IP isn't enough to have some sort of semi-protection or other recourse. Could you please explain that to me, or what I could do in the future to mitigate the vandalism that this dynamic IP user inflicts upon the page? Thanks in advance! JasonDUIUC (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection is a very incisive measure that restricts our "anyone can edit"-policy for IPs and new users completely and thus should not be used lightly. As such, protection should never be used lightly and when no new cases of vandalism happen in more than 11 hours, then it's usually assumed that it stopped for good. If it starts again and cannot be contained otherwise, you can re-request protection. Regards SoWhy 19:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I get what you're saying, but it was 5 incidents alone in less than 24 hours from early yesterday to early today; based on the previous pattern of attacks, it seems that it will probably happen again later today, as a result of the reversion a few hours ago. Guess I'll have to bother you folks at Page Protection again then... Thanks though, for the response! JasonDUIUC (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Adding: Whoa, my bad on the accidental deletion of the stuff below this. Thank goodness for watchlists, eh? I was like WTF? How did I lower the pagesize by typing stuff???? JasonDUIUC (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

In a Perfect World...

Hey there SoWhy, thanks for semi-protecting In a Perfect World..., but I'd like to point out that a registered user (I'm assuming the same person who was editing while logged out) is making the same edits. Can you take another look? Thanks. — Σxplicit 20:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is nothing protection-wise I can do about that. Warn the user to stop and discuss (remember to issue a 3RR warning). If they continue, take them to ANEW or AIV for a block. Regards SoWhy 20:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, looks like you beat me to the blocks before I could report them. Thank you, hopefully this encourages both users to discuss the issue on the talk page instead of reverting each other. — Σxplicit 20:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. I, too, hope the same. Regards SoWhy 20:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

MariAna Mimi

Noticed your block (which I concur with), and was wondering why you didn't deem AndreaCarax to be equally problematic. Looks like 5 reverts each in that edit war.—Kww(talk) 20:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Patience, young Jedi. I issued a block to them as well after they reverted a fourth time after they received a 3RR warning 4 minutes prior. Regards SoWhy 20:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

New request at WP:RFPP

FYI, The Fox and the Hound and One Hundred and One Dalmatians need unprotection. Skylab's little chicken (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Please contact the protecting administrator, Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs), to request unprotection. Regards SoWhy 21:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Tan seems to be off line, so can you do it please? Skylab's little chicken (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but he has explicitly requested to be informed about changing protection on those articles. If you want to get something changed in the mean time, you can request it at the talk page(s) using the {{editsemiprotected}} template. Regards SoWhy 22:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Tan is a he? I didn't know that. But anyway, at Talk:One Hundred and One Dalmatians I suggusted a merge of the articles, but there has been no response. The Fox and the Hound just recenntly went under what looks like it could be vandalism, should Collection look into it? Although I don't live in Canada so I don't know if they DID distrubute the 2006 re-release but I don't think it's relevant anyway. Skylab's little chicken (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
This is just another Bambifan101 sock. Feel free to block him instead. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

check me?

Hi SoWhy, would you have a look at this thread on my talk page, and the deletion logs of those other files. I haven't really used these new buttons too much yet, and I want to make sure I'm doing it right. Wouldn't you know it - the very first adminy thing someone asks of me, is the one thing I said I was least interested in doing .... lol. Couldn't be a page protection, or block an obvious vandal ... noooo... "Ched can you delete this" ...lol. Anyway, I saw that Quadell got one of the files too ... so I dropped him a note too. Thanks ;) — Ched :  ?  18:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(looking up a couple threads) .. ahhh ... another Star Wars fan eh? "Found a friend, I think I have" ;). Oh, and the one question on those deletes that did concern me - a second editor had tagged it as possibly non-free ... should I have perhaps not used the db-author item? — Ched :  ?  18:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure am one, more than I might like. Just got myself Omen as hardcover. But back to the topic at hand: G7 is always fine. It might have been unfree or it might not have been but if the author asks for deletion, that does not really matter (unless others contributed to the page substantially). Since they are Commons-files, you could also have used F8 instead. Regards SoWhy 19:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Advanced Market Research Group

Hi SoWhy,

I had added an article called Advanced Market Research Group and it was deleted saying content is similar, but i own the website.

I have sent you a talk message on May 2nd 2009 with this regards.

I would request you to be kind enough to consider adding this article and advise me accordingly

Thanks Kunnal Motwani Managing Director & Owner Advanced Market Research Group(www.amrgindia.com) Kunnalamrg (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see my reply on May 2, 2009 at User talk:SoWhy/Archive 14#deletion of article Advanced Market Research Group. Regards SoWhy 08:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear SoWhy,

thanks for you prompt response to my query. My apologies for repeating the question earlier.

Since i am new to wikipedia, love and use it to a large extent. I am no way trying to advertise my website.

My basic purpose was to list my company among other listed like on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_of_India and hence wanted to add this article.

By adding this article i would help users who use that existing page.

another example of a an article like mine would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMRB_International

I would like to seek your advice, how to do this.

thanks and regards, Kunnalamrg (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you have undoubtedly a conflict of interest regarding your website and while it's not explicitly forbidden to write about such things, I would strongly advise that you do not try and create an article about anything you are involved in. It is almost impossible for someone to write neutrally and objective about something they care about deeply (like you do about your website) and it does not serve the interest of Wikipedia to have such articles. If your website is indeed notable by our standards, sooner or later someone else will create the article anyway. If you are convinced your website meets our notability standards for web content, you could also use Wikipedia:Requested articles to request someone to write this article. Regards SoWhy 06:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

UXUA Casa Hotel

Hiya, I see you declined the speedy on the above, as you couldn't find the copyright infringement. Having loked at the link it seems to have changed since I put the nomination in (there were more entries when I originally looked). Anyway, having looked through the site, the bit which the article is a copy of is here: [1]. It seemed pretty blatant to me, hence the speedy. Cheers. Quantpole (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

To be eligible for G12, it needs to be a complete copyvio. If only parts of the article are copied (as it seems the case here), it's probably better to just remove those parts. I went and did remove those parts that were copyvio. Regards SoWhy 16:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm happy to take on board any advice with how to deal with these situations. Quantpole (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive bot

Could you possibly install the archiving bot which you have into my talk page? I did try but could seem to figure it out. DotComCairney 16:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I added the necessary code to your talk page. You will have to wait for the bot to run the next time for it to have any effect. You can change the time after threads get archived by changing the old(7d) to something else (e.g. old(3d) for 3 days or old(14d) for 2 weeks). Remember that the bot won't move anything if no threads meet this criterion. Please ask if it still does not work in 1-2 days (the bot ran an hour ago for me so it might not do anything to your talk page until tomorrow at this time). Regards SoWhy 16:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

decletype

Dude, seriously have I stolen your thunder with this RFA? I'm really sorry to step on your toes if I did. My fault, I should have read his page further and asked you first. Pedro :  Chat  10:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, no worries. I'm actually happened you nominated them because after the FT debacle, I'm quite wary to be the (alone) nom of someone. You have certainly reviewed them very objectively - more so then I could, with all my fanboy-ish hype about this editor. This way, you can present the objective and neutral result of your examination and I can add the fanboy-ish co-nom to it. It's a win-win imho, sorry if the text sounded otherwise. Regards SoWhy 10:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
PS: I tweaked the co-nom a bit to hopefully avoid such misunderstandings (and because it was a mess^^). Regards SoWhy 11:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Cool, all good by me - nice balanced joint nomination IMHO! Pedro :  Chat  11:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Talking of copy editing - [2] ! Pedro :  Chat  11:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Nice typo. Too bad you found it, I would have loved opposes like "Candidate is here to commit treason (see nom)" ;-) SoWhy 11:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Help with some article moves and author attribution problems

Hi SoWhy, are you around? A user from the Spanish wiki, Xavigivax (talk · contribs), asked me to help him move an article over a redirect. I put in a request at WP:RM; from what I can tell, the request seems uncontroversial. What was at Siurana, he moved to Bellmunt del Priorat, and wanted Siurana (Alt Empordà) moved to Siurana. All ok so far, :-) However, I'm not sure if the original move he made was a mistake or if he just realised there was a better name for the article, because he has cut most of the content of Bellmunt del Priorat and pasted it in a new article, Siurana (Tarragona). I'm pretty sure he did it that way because he didn't want to replace or actually redirect Bellmunt del Priorat. I've left a note on his talk page asking him to correct it by undoing his edits, and instead moving Bellmunt del Priorat to the new name, but I've realised that, because Siurana (Tarragona) exists now, he won't be able to. That's where you come in! Would you be able to help sort it out? I know it's confusing, sorry to waste your time, :-/ Maedin\talk 12:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I moved the Siurana (Alt Empordà) to Siurana. Everything else can be fixed by editing and does not need admin tools to be done. Btw, next time, simply use {{db-move|Siurana (Alt Empordà)}} on the redirect page, it's usually quicker than RM. Regards SoWhy 12:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that, :-) I think I'm missing something though . . . the cut and paste has detached edits from their history, so presumably Bellmunt del Priorat needs to be moved to Siurana (Tarragona). Will I be able to do that? I thought that one couldn't move something as long as there is history at the target page? Maedin\talk 12:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Yikes, I see what you mean. Okay, I think I got it. Xavigivax's version of Bellmunt del Priorat was essentially a new creation on top of an old article. I have thus transferred all previous revisions of the article to Siurana (Tarragona) where the content now resides. Thus both articles should now have the correct history for their edits (I hope). Scold me, if I have missed anything ;-) Regards SoWhy 12:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes! It's perfect, thank you so much! All those deletions and moves and restored revisions looked very clever, by the way, ;-) Maedin\talk 12:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You think so? Imho they look very confusing ;-) SoWhy 13:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! --Xavigivax (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Renaming

I noticed you do a lot of stuff at changing username pages, so I thought I would ask you here to save me the embarrasment if I'm wrong. I have an "alternate account" called User:Auric Goldfinger 4472 that I use for warning vandals (so far just once). I was wanting to get that account usurped to use the username for my User:Spongefrog account. Is this actually possible? Or could I even rename it without the 4472 (by the way, I chose the name because I wanted to steal User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld's idea and I had a clever idea for a signature). I notice you are undergoing an admin review. Unfortunately, I have no idea what that is (although I could just click the links) so if A) you're to busy to answer, or B) this is the wrong place to be asking, I'll understand. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 21:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be no user called User:Auric Goldfinger registered, so you can just head to WP:CHU and request Spongefrog to be renamed to that name (detailed instructions are on that page).
As for admin review, it's basically the same as editor review, just focusing how someone uses the admin tools rather than on the user's edits. Regards SoWhy 21:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought for a minute you had abused your admin tools, and were getting "fired" so to speak. Then I clicked on the links. Again, thanks, and Merry Christmas! Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 15:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

AndreaCarax

AndreaCarax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just doesn't seem to get the point. She has continued her edit war after coming off the 72-hour block you gave her. Time for a week or an indef, I think.—Kww(talk) 11:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You are probably correct but I have twice acted in that regard, so I'd appreciate if another admin were to do it. I will report it to WP:ANEW to have a second set of eyes decide it. Regards SoWhy 12:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Category creation

Would it be possible to create a category for User:Bobbo/Supports_The_Pirate_Bay so I could see all the users who have the Userbox? Thanks, DotComCairney 17:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You may know this already, but even if there is no category, you can still use Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Bobbo/Supports_The_Pirate_Bay. Of course, users who have substed the box onto their userpage wont be listed. Regards, decltype (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh no I didn't know that, Thanks, DotComCairney 17:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Oops, turns out the link was incorrect. Now corrected :) Regards, decltype (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Usergroups

Hey, I was wondering if there were any user groups you think I'd be eligible for. I applied for permissions to use New Page Watcher which I downloaded, I was turned down because it seems like I haven't done much npwatching but that is surely not the case. Most of the new page edits I do don't show up as such, I believe someone has clicked the "patrolled" link or done something slight just before I make my edit. I just feel like I could be doing more. Read my talk page and those I've conversed with if you like, I believe I have improved since I started and am continuing on the right path. Any input would be helpful :D Thanks. Cliffsteinman (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to second Hersfold here. You need at least 500 edits for NPWatcher as well as some CSD knowledge, which you need to prove first (a week is not enough, try again when you reached 500 edits and 3-4 weeks). You can do new page patrol manually as well, I never used NPWatcher before I became an admin and I was an active new page patroller back then. It sure works fine and tools like Twinkle help. I see no other permissions you can gain at the moment, the only one reasonable would be rollback but it's too soon for that. If an admin does not trust you with NPWatcher, they are unlikely to trust you with rollback. So continue to patrol pages manually and once you amassed some edits and experience in that area, you can re-request permissions. Be sure to read a CSD-related essay like WP:FIELD, WP:10CSD, WP:WIHS or WP:A7M. Regards SoWhy 07:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-Voting

Before I press "Save page", do you know of an "unwritten" rule that says that RfA candidates should not ¬vote in other RfAs? It just seems to be a rare occurence. I can of course think of a few reasons why.. decltype (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There is none I can think of, admin candidates should not stop their normal editing because of an RFA after all. It just carries the risk of "revenge"-!votes but I would not say that this is a huge risk and certainly should not stop you from saying what you think is right or wrong. Regards SoWhy 09:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I raised this issue at WT:RFA during my first RFA and consensus what that there was no issue whatsoever. Worth checking though! Pedro :  Chat  10:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Didn't even occur to me this could be an issue! I voted willy-nilly on various RfAs during my own, nobody complained. ~ mazca talk 10:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I hereby claim that knowing the community's will in this case is a sign for my omniscience![citation needed] SoWhy 10:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
In this case, wrong, unfortunately. Thanks for weighing in, everyone. decltype (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean, wrong? I'm omniscient, I cannot be wrong!!! Just kidding... SoWhy 10:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
As in "saying what you think is right or wrong". Oh, and see also User:SoWhy/My_mistakes :) decltype (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Article

I feel the deletion of my article as "vandalism" was a little unfair. "Non-encyclopedic" I can live with, but it was a genuine attempt to provide a terminology for a phenomena which has yet to be defined with a modern latin name. I mean, voraphilia and similar have wikipedia articles defining them.

Well, I was planning to add further references to the article,, but in the interest of not agrivating the community, and in keeping to the site's policy, which I've not read in a bit more detail than my initial skim, I do not intend to re-post the article, and understand the reason for its deletion. I have to say that "vandalism" is a bit misleading though.

No hard feelings, I hope.

Also, the Vandals never actually vandalised anything. Yes, they sacked Rome, but there are no records or smashed telephone boxes. Sorry, historical joke.

I am not peterbed by this early failure though, and hope to provide better referenced and researched articles in the future that fall within the wikipedia guidelines.

Thankyou for your time

Username DocRossim (note, not actually a doctor, that's just a reference to part of my name) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DocRossim (talk • contribs) 13:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I deleted it as "blatant hoax or misinformation" because as you admit, it was completely made up and served no other purpose than to spread this word. If you acted in good faith, then yes, vandalism is not the correct term but it's usually not the case when people insert blatant hoaxes so it was safe to assume that this was the case here as well. For the future, you might want to avoid adding such articles, then you will be able to avoid deletion for those reasons. No hard feelings I hope, if you need anything when trying to contribute to Wikipedia, please do not hesitate to ask. Regards SoWhy 15:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In Regards To The Yung Banks Deletion

I Was Writing in regards to the Yung Banks Page. The Source You Are referring to that was copywrite infringed, was in fact not. I would love the chance to prove to you that this was not a copywrite infringment.

MidwestKing2007 (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)MidwestKing2007

It was copied almost 1:1 from Myspace, to be exact from here. While you may claim to own the right to this text, Wikipedia does not accept copyrighted material to be submitted under any circumstances (except certain exceptions for images under our fair-use policy). Even if you were able to release this text under the GFDL and the Creative Commons Share-Alike/Attribution 3.0 license, it will probably be re-deleted under criterion for speedy deletion A7 (no indication of importance or significance of the subject in question).
You might want to read Wikipedia:Your first article and write about subjects that can meet our notability guidelines (see the guidelines for musicians in particular) and where this can be sourced to reliable sources. Regards SoWhy 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted page

Hi SoWhy, I noticed that my page was deleted today. I actually wrote the page following what 'Fitbit' did, as mySkin is a very similar play as Fitbit. It's a venture backed company, 30 employees, accomplished founders, and a product that solves customer needs. I think it was written in a neutral tone to provide information...would you have any advice for me? Thanks! Sulmare (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have: Do not write about things you are involved in. While it's not forbidden, it almost always ends in such pages that serve no other purpose than to promote the things they are about. You had the page in your userspace but such pages are amongst the content that userspace is not created for (see WP:UP#NOT). A page can still be promotional even if it's written somehow neutrally if it was only created to promote a product or company (as this page was)
I advice you to simply wait until someone writes an article about your company - if it's notable within our guidelines (verified using reliable sources). You can also try Wikipedia:Requested articles. Regards SoWhy 18:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Skiing (sex)

Hi So Why, thanks for the message. I find neologisms difficult some are certainly done in good faith but I would think this sort of unreferenced sexual neologism is more likely for titillation value amongst early teen boys. I appreciate that there is no specific CSD category for neologisms but the alternative is to leave this rubbish on site for a minimum of 7 days and possibly, if contested, 14 - I don't think that is the best interests of the Wikipedia project and it has the risk of encouraging copycat entries. Do you remember all the articles on unlikely coprophagic sexual practices that were here a few years ago? I think this is vandalism and should be CSd'd om this criteria. Porturology (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the SD policy is quite clear on the eligibility of neologism, slang or dictionary entries: They are part of WP:NOT and as such cannot be speedy deleted (see WP:CSD#Non-criteria). I do not think it's vandalism because vandalism carries the implication that the creation was done in bad faith, i.e. to be disruptive. There is nothing to suggest this and I'd rather keep something like that for 14 days than to call some good-faith contributor who just does not know the rules a vandal and likely WP:BITE them from the project. Regards SoWhy 22:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WT:CSD

Hi. There's a conversation at the CSD talk page that might be of interest to you (since it involves an article the speedy deletion of which you just declined :)). It's at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Religion_against_sea_swimmers. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I spilled my thoughts there. Regards SoWhy 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

speedy declined

Hi So Why, please tell me what claim to significance you saw in Wicked Wendsdays--I didn't see it, though I wasn't sure whether A7 was the applicable rule. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for SoWhy, but I probably would have also declined that speedy for the same reason - the claim that the event includes several notable people and the cast from a notable production is a reasonable claim to significance, I think. I doubt it'll survive AfD but it's enough to avoid A7. ~ mazca talk 06:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly as mazca says. It'S not much but A7 does not require much. Regards SoWhy 08:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well said

[3] Good point, well said. Nathan T 19:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much SoWhy 19:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long...

...but I finished the German translation for my edit counter. Thanks! (X! · talk)  · @960  ·  22:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Regards SoWhy 06:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Decline

In review, I was hasty with the marking of Sarah Carbonel. It has been nominated for deletion: Non-notable, fails WP:BIO.--TRL (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

MeetingUniverse delete

1. I read the link "read here" first.

You deleted MeetingUniverse's entry with only the comment that it had been deleted before. As for notability when MeetingUniverse was first added a year ago, there were NO articles about it and thus was deleted. The conversation with the wiki editor at the time said if you can get even one 3rd party source that verifies your identity "we can leave MU there". Not only has there been one source but many that have written about MU and the importance in the meeting planning arena. This alone should speak to the relevance of MU. The meeting planning industry controls upwards of 100 billions of dollars of spend and is vital to the nations economy. Look at all the hotels that are suffering from a downturn in meetings, comments made by Obama about corporate meetings and the backlash they incurred and I think you will have a better understanding that meeting planning is much more than an insignificant niche. There are other individual traveler sites such as tripadvisor or igougo on wikipedia whose references consist mostly of internal press releases and yet they remain. There are over 500000 meeting planners in the US and they can command budgets upwards of $10M per meeting. It is for that reason that publications such as M&C magazine command ad rates of $50,000 per page and gross $3-4M in advertising per monthly issue despite only having a circulation of 60,000.

In other words MU doesn't fall within any of the deletion categories you list except for possibly notability. Wiki editors would have a point on notability if perhaps MU was a passing mention in one article but when you add up all of the references in different publications including a reference in a recently published book about how to start a niche travel business, MU is hardly non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hospitalityexpert (talk • contribs) 15:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meetinguniverse is a barely 5 days old community decision to delete this article. If you are convinced that the deletion was incorrect, please contact the closing admin on that AFD or use deletion review to contest it. I was merely safeguarding that recreations of that article are not done against aforementioned consensus. Regards SoWhy 16:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I answered on the user's talk page. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Request

Please see the section I just created at Afd talk. It's possible I posed that question in the wrong place, it is an unusual circumstance and any advice you have would be appreciated. Sswonk (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions about whether speedy deletion should be applied to a particular article are usually best asked at an admin's talk page directly or if it's more complicated, at WT:CSD. WT:AFD is indeed the incorrect place as the page you wanted to ask about was a redirect. Next time you have questions about speedy deletions, you are welcome to ask me directly about it. Regards SoWhy 06:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer. I am hoping you will extend this offer to include an assessment of arguments I made at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Interstate_50. It should only take a couple of minutes to read the debate, and I am wondering what you think about two of my points at the AfD discussion: 1) the penultimate comment, where I compare the article to other non-existent subjects, and 2) a final comment in reply to PennySpender1983 located in the middle of the discussion where I classify the redirect as "confusing or objectionable" under WP:MAD. I realize that I incorrectly called the essay at WP:MAD a "guideline". The only subsequent comment was by NE2 at the bottom of the discussion, and the closing admin chose to "Redirect", since the merge had already been partly accomplished. I don't want to challenge the decision at this time, but I would like to know how you view my reasoning in this case as I move forward for possible future debates, with WP:LAWYER and WP:PARENT already taken into consideration (i.e. I don't plan to write some time in the future "But, SoWhy said..."). Sswonk (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hey .. THANKS!!! ... You made my day ... <* big smiles *> — Ched :  ?  16:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not that seldom that people agree with you, is it?
PS: As a faithful talk page stalker (and other TPSs here), what do you think about my new userpage? Regards SoWhy 16:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
WOW ... great! Clean, fast loading, great "quick links". Gotta love the pic - that Fir is something else with his photography eh? I love the scenery pics no doubt. (Do some amature stuff myself - but not THAT good ... lol). — Ched :  ?  16:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hallo, interrupting! I like the new user page . . . I prefer it to the old one. The old one was a bit . . . hmmm, small? Too small, :-) Anyway, if one follows your header logically, one gets stuck at the talk page with no more header. Any chance that the header could be on your talk, too? Just an idea! Maedin\talk 17:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a header on this page. At least I see it but then again, I might be dreaming ;-) SoWhy 21:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, so there is. I'm sure that wasn't there before! Maedin\talk 06:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Possibly cached in your browser...or in your brain SoWhy 06:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I do like the new one. The old one was rather unique and intricate in its design, but sometimes "less is more" :) Regards, decltype (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
That's what I thought as well. It was creative I guess but honestly I felt it was too overbearing. Sometimes less really is more. Regards SoWhy 06:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rawhide Boys Ranch

You declined the A7 on this 4 months ago when it was 4 sentences, but promotional material has been added relentlessly since then (by User:Rawhide... among others); it seemed hopeless and I decided to go with the tagger on the G11. I'll be happy to reinstate if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 17:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sexual Virgin

Hi SoWhy. Just wanted to check if you had found a source that confirmed this title...? I could not find one, and the editor who added it had some other dubious edits... Thanks, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't, I just declined the incorrect speedy tagging and rewrote the article based on what was in the article. If you think it's incorrect, you are free to move it to a more appropriate name. Regards SoWhy 06:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thank-!spam

Dear SoWhy,

I wanted to take a moment to thank you personally for supporting me in my RFA, which just closed as successful at 66/6/1. I remembered that you were one of the people that opposed me in my last RfA. My stomach was in knots the whole time while I was putting in my self-nom, as well as during the first couple of days that my RfA was open. However, when I saw your !vote, it made me feel easier about myself, and gave me some hope that I had indeed improved my standing with the community. I look forward to serving the community in the coming months, and I hope that we can continue to collaborate together in future endeavors. I sincerely thank you again for your support. Thanks, Matt (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Matt. First of all, thank you for your kind words. It really means a lot to me that I could help you with anything I did and if it was only a !vote in an RFA, so be it. Truth be told, I was very pleasantly surprised on how you matured after your first attempt and I have the utmost confidence that you are up to the "job" now. If you need any help regarding your newly earned buttons, please do not hesitate to ask and I will do whatever I can to help you. On a side note, I agree with the only neutral !vote on your second RFA, imho you should use your username in your signature to avoid confusing users. Regards SoWhy 07:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, if that is the way the community feels, then who am I to oppose them. Regards, Mikaey, Devil's advocate 07:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Misbehaviour by Reisio regd Chromium

Regarding the Chrome/Chromium merge discussion, the user User:Reisio has deleted an important official reference in the lead section (along with the wikitext) from the Chromium (web browser) article only to justify separating the articles, quoting a meaningless google search page. I request that you intervene is this matter as you have done before, and somehow make him/her understand that such vandalism will not be tolerated. Thank you. I also want to thank you for your excellent comments in regard to the same discussion. Most reasonable and respectable. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I have taken part in the content discussion regarding the merge proposal and will thus not intervene as an administrator. I suggest you talk to the user directly or, if this does not help, use the administrator's noticeboard against incidents to have an uninvolved administrator decide if and how administrative intervention is needed here. Regards SoWhy 11:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding notability of Swami Amritaswarupananda Puri

Hello: I fail to understand the reason why you wanted to keep the article Swami Amritaswarupananda Puri while it is not at all notable. Being the first disciple of a sanyasini is not enough reason for a person to become notable. I had placed a speedy on it once. Now someone else has done it. There are many devotees around for the sanyasini, but keeping an article shouldn't be based on such sentiments. That is my thought. I honestly hope you will look into the article on its merit. Happy editing! -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Please take some time and read WP:CSD to understand, how our speedy deletion policy is applied and when it's not applied. Speedy deletion is a limited set of exception where admins can delete a page outside the correct venues of proposed deletion or deletion discussions. Because this essentially removes the community's possibility to share their input on the merit of a certain page, it needs to be handled strictly. The criterion you used (as has the IP), A7, clearly states thast "notability", while the threshold for inclusion, is not a reason for speedy deletion. Instead, importance or significance is enough and they just need to be indicated in any credible way. If this is the case, speedy deletion fails, which is why I declined it. You will notice that I indeed share the belief that this person is failing our notability guideline for people and have used proposed deletion of the article. Regards SoWhy 16:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation! -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

MeetingUniverse

SoWhy,

Please tell me why tripadvisor, IgoUgo and Meeting Professionals International have been allowed to stay and MeetingUniverse has not. I patterned my article after those pages with the exception that I added reliable 3rd party sources while most of their sources are internal. I would like to learn rather than being censored without answers to my questions. Are you willing to help me?

Thank you,

Mfetzer3 (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the first question, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists will answer it quite well imho. As for the subject at hand, I have explained my deletion above at #MeetingUniverse delete to another user. My advice to that user, as well as the advice of another admin at that user's talk page, should answer your questions as well. If not, please feel free to ask again. Regards SoWhy 16:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for talk page stalker comments :-D

Hi there my trusty stalkers, I just used some of my university time and created User:SoWhy/Not everyone is an artist. I would invite you to comment on it and of course feel free to change and fiddle with it as much as you want. Thanks! SoWhy 17:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What you talking about? Stalkers? There are no - Oh. Wait.... okay, comments coming in shortly :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thought added to User talk:SoWhy/Not everyone is an artist - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Westerbury

so why did you delete this page? It was completely neutral and did not promote anything. It was simply information and that's what Wikipedia is for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketmcgee9 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I fear you have been tricked by a common misconception. To be precise, Wikipedia actually is not a directory for organisations or company. As such, content to be included here needs to be notable for inclusion, not just neutral or informational. In this case, the article was not even indicating why the company in question should be considered important or significant in any way, which made it eligible for speedy deletion. If you can tell me why the company should indeed be considered important and/or significant, I will be happy to restore it. But unless you can establish aforementioned notability using reliable sources, it will almost certainly be re-deleted using another process (see our deletion policy for details). Regards SoWhy 08:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User page change back in April just noticed

Hello... There is some missing material on one of my user pages that was removed without my knowing. [4]. I'd like this material restored or a short explanation for why it was removed. Thank you Mrshaba (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

An IP editor tagged your page for speedy deletion under criterion G10 - personal attack page. I removed the tagging because it was incorrect. Regards SoWhy 06:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Ahhh... I noticed there was aboutt 33 kB missing but it's restorable. Thank you. Mrshaba (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

question

For folks that are interested in closes. I posted a question about adding a close date and time to XfD items: posted at: XfD thread

The only reason I mentioned it here SoWhy, is because you're usually the first person I look for when I have question about deleting things. Hope you don't see it as "canvassing". — Ched :  ?  14:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ron Scot Fry

Do whatever you like with the afd, but please don't exaggerate, and please don't patronize me. A Google News search turned up ONE (1) hit on Ron Scot Fry. I did read the criteria for speedy deletion, which clearly state that there must be significant coverage that is reliable and independent of the subject. One Google News hit is hardly "significant coverage". Of the 51 regular Google hits, 90% are from Renaissance Faire (his former employer), his own websites, Facebook, LinkedIn, and others of that ilk, none of which are reliable or independent of the subject. --Sift&Winnow 22:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you felt patronized. I think you confuse two different deletion processes here, WP:AFD and WP:CSD. Please let me explain my reasoning, I think you will see why I left you this message then:
First of all, Google News finds 15 hits - the one hit is just the result you will get if you limit the search to the last month.
Then, as for the speedy deletion criteria, are you sure, we are talking about the same thing here? The notability guideline specifies a requirement of " significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." On the other hand, our speedy deletion policy does not specify any criterion that would allow an admin to speedy delete because of missing notability. The only criterion that may be applied is criterion A7 which explicitly specifies that it uses a lower standard and does not require any sources at all, just any claim of importance and/or significance. The claim is there (see my declining reason). Whether this is enough to establish notability is another thing but that is to be decided at WP:AFD in a community discussion.
I hope you can understand why I declined the speedy deletion now. You are free to pursue deletion using WP:AFD instead. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Regards SoWhy 22:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Toyota MP-1

Thanks, I appreciate your guidance related to the proposed speedy deletion. After revisiting it, I agree. It does have discernable content (sort of like a blog comment, but yes some content). Again, thanks for your help. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts about adding it to the AfD roll? Capitalismojo (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Well I see you have added more content. I'll leave it alone, though I am scratching my head about notability. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about notability, I just rewrote the content that existed there to look like a proper stub. Notability may exist but someone who knows about this topic should decide whether it's AFD worthy or not. The car has been included in the navbox after all. Regards SoWhy 19:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Trashwomen

Read carefully. The Trashwomen weren't on a notable label, Tina & the Total Babes were. I only found six Google News hits, only one of which was non-trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Although you declared in your edit summary that I hadn't read the article "carefully," (and make a similar charge against another editor here, the editor who wasn't reading carefully would be you. I was careful to point out in my comment today that the notable label involved wasn't mentioned in the article, which makes your discussion of the article text pointless. The admin who reviewed my speedy nom yesterday did better research than I did or you did. Estrus Records. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. And even if the artist were not signed directly to such a label, it contains a member that is or was. That combined with Google News hits (no matter how trivial) makes it enough to fail A7. TPH, I respect your work here but if you continue to tag articles after speedy deletion has been declined already, it will sooner or later be seen as attempted admin shopping and acted upon. You may disagree with some decisions admins make but such actions will not help anyone, neither the project nor yourself. Regards SoWhy 19:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A7

Hi - another quick question for you - re your decline here. I can't find where it's written that journals or newspapers don't qualify under A7. Can you point me in the right direction. I was thinking this should be treated as an organization. Would seem strange to say that a website or podcast can be A7 but a magazine can't. Thanks.    7   talk | Δ |   14:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would agree with SoWhy's decline there - a newspaper is more of a "product" than an "organisation", and isn't really covered by A7. The reason blogs and podcasts can and do get speedied under A7 is because they fall under the "web content" clause in the criterion. A7 is rather deliberately specific, as the particular categories of articles mentioned in it (real people, organisations/companies, and web content) are the only things there was direct consensus for, and I agree it does sometimes result in counterintuitive situations like this one. I'd certainly support an AfD nomination of that article, though, if you can't find any sources - it really doesn't make any suggestion that it might meet our guidelines for inclusion. ~ mazca talk 14:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Very well said, mazca. Unlike websites and podcasts, magazines are "products" of the respective publishers and as such not covered by A7. Regards SoWhy 16:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Understood. Thank you both.    7   talk | Δ |   22:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Johns

Hi SoWhy. Sorry to bother you, but as you protected the Matthew Johns page I figured I should check with you and ask for some advice. We seem to have arrived at something close to consensus on the page. While it isn't anyone's prefered version, it's probably as good as we're going to get. Anyway, my query was whether you would recommend requesting an edit to a protected page; going with unprotecting the page, making the change, and seeing whether or not things start up again with the new text; or seeking further discussion and not making a change at this point. Personally I'd lean towards an unprotect, simply to see if the dispute still exists with the new text, but WP:BRD has a certain appeal to me. :)

The main editor against the change is Archaic d00d‎, but the current wording is closely based on their suggestion. Currently the editor is blocked for two weeks, so I'm also happy if you recommend waiting until the block expires, but to be honest I'm not convinced we'll get 100% support from all editors no matter what we do. - Bilby (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected. I had hoped that someone notified me sooner, so sorry it was not unprotected sooner. I will assume that discussion has yielded enough to avoid further edit-warring, else it can be reprotected. Regards SoWhy 16:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we had enough of an agreement earlier to be reasonably confident that things would be ok. Thanks for unprotecting it - hopefully things will be stable. :) - Bilby (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Fitler 200

I've disabled the filter. Please see Wikipedia talk:Edit filter#Filter 200 and my comments there. Is there a reason the bot can't simply monitor the category for new entries? –xenotalk 17:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

See User:SDPatrolBot/prodResults :), bot is in trial at the moment, but will soon notify users about their PRODs being removed (hopefully). Although I personally don't see a problem with the filter. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the bot you've written doesn't require the EF ? –xenotalk 17:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, as I requested the bot after Kingpin started working on it (I didn't know that). I've left my response at the talk page above. Regards SoWhy 17:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Image permission question

Hi SoWhy, if you have a moment could you please take a look at File:Chairman-mao-holding-hands-of-bush-senior.jpg (or recommend me to someone else who can)? It was just uploaded by a user who was blocked in the past for uploading copyvio (among other things), so I figured I should get it checked by someone more familiar with the rules than I am. It is listed as PD-government, but appears to be a screenshot from something (just says "Documentary", doesn't specify the title or source information). Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It can still be PD as a screenshot, if the source material was taken by the government. Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do about it here as it lies on commons. I think the most viable way to proceed would be to list the image for deletion at Commons (see Commons:Deletion guidelines#Regular deletion), citing your aforementioned concerns of similar (duck-like) behavior by this user. Commons deletion policy says that deletion (unlike here) can also be used in cases of "(...) unclear copyright status (...)". If you need any more specific help dealing with copyright violations, Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) is probably our most clueful admin in this area. Regards SoWhy 06:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks; I've listed it there. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Solidarity (Australia)

Hi SoWhy, I don't necessarily agree with your assertion of notability for this group so I've brought it to AfD. Just courtesy heads up. Not watching here but I'm watching AfD. Have a nice day StarM 12:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fully prepared to find out that the group is not really notable, but I think valid indications of importance/significance can be drawn from such prior notable members and that's after all all that A7 needs. Regards SoWhy 12:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

NIS Interceptor

Hi. Somebody yesterday added two linked new pages, Network Integrity Systems and NIS Interceptor. The first was speedily deleted, so I nominated the second, which you declined. Maybe I should have used some other criterion than A7, but it seems odd to chop the one and leave the other. Perhaps you can sort it out. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Such is the problem with A7, it explicitly excludes products. Thus the product cannot be speedy deleted while the company can. Another user tagged it for WP:PROD which is the correct venue in this case. Regards SoWhy 13:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SoWhy. You have new messages at Tyw7's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

By the way how did you make the notice above the edit box? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 16:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You can find detailed instructions at Wikipedia:Editnotice. Regards SoWhy 20:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Bastille Day!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and "viva la France!" Regards SoWhy 09:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I'm glad to see that you were able to improve the the article Staubli so that it indicates notability; I no longer intend to pursue its deletion. At your suggestion I checked google news, but most of the articles were only available through paysites, so I couldn't really verify independently or jump in to help. Keep up the good work!Synchronism (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I had no access to those as well, I only used what I could find at Google News, Scholar and Books as well as the Stäubli homepage (for the history details). Seems to be quite a large company but I have no expertise in that area to add more. But maybe you, too, will try to expand a bit before requesting deletion the next time. And even the Google News hits indicate enough importance/significance to fail A7 anyway. Regards SoWhy 11:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
A large company with a long history, indeed. The article as I saw it was a one-liner that gave no hint of its expanse. Begging your pardon, it did meet the A7 criteria, you were able to improve it to a condition where it would not be speedy-able, just as any editor can do given they have the initiative.Synchronism (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
You are correct of course. It met A7 or rather, the letter of A7. Imho, A7 serves to weed out the personal bios, myspace bands and fansites that get added all the time and are never ever likely to meet any notability guideline. On the other hand, a stub of a notable subject can meet A7 as well but shouldn't. Because CSD is quite BITEy, we should not use it whenever the chance exists that the article might be kept. Regards SoWhy 12:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, I like that. I'll be more mindful of the distinction between the letter and the spirit of the CSD. Thanks. The month-old one-liner actually did get at, albeit indirectly, the geographical expanse of the company FWIW. Again, nice rescue work, Synchronism (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

About Two Cents of Hope

I guess there has been a misunderstanding. I just checked today that the article I had written about Two Cents of Hope has been deleted. I am not sure what the reason for this is. Two Cents of Hope is a noted Non- Government organization founded by graduate students of NC State University at Raleigh, NC, USA. It has developed a local prominence by hosting a number of fund raising events. It has gained in popularity in the recent year. Tabulating such an organization in wikipedia should not be discouraged. When articles such as "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asha_for_Education" has been allowed in wikipedia, why not the one on Two Cents of Hope. Also one more point I would like to mention here is that this was my first article and I was not done with editing the page. However I could not find a way to save the pages but not publish it. If the article is cleared I assure you that the page will be completed and only then saved onto wikipedia. You can review it then and reach any conclusion. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chetantekur (talk • contribs) 01:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. First of all, please leave other articles out of it when trying to defend your article. Every article is measured individually and there is no "if this one exists, that one has to exist as well"-rule (see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists). Then, for your article. It was deleted because there was no indication of any importance or significance of said NGO. Wikipedia has a set of guidelines (see Wikipedia:Notability) that need to be followed for an article to be included. Furthermore, it has a policy for speedy deletion that allows admins like me to delete pages where there is no indication at all that the article might meet any guideline for inclusion. If you can give me any reason why this organisation should be considered significant compared to the millions of similar organisations around the world, I'd be happy to restore the article to your userspace where you can work on it. Before you request this though, you might want to read our guidelines on conflicts of interest and reliable sources. Unless you can show non-trivial coverage in such sources to verify anything in the article, it will most likely be re-deleted using articles for deletion, thus you will have worked in vain. Wikipedia:Your first article is a useful read in that regard.
Last but not least, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages like this one using ~~~~. Regards SoWhy 06:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello soWhy, thank you for your feedback. I have a included a few links here to illustrate the popularity of Two Cents of Hope in local areas -- "http://www.twocentsofhope.com/documents/ruksana.pdf", "http://www.hindu.com/2006/06/15/stories/2006061518700200.htm" , " http://www.technicianonline.com/news/crescendo-07-event-to-promote-cause-1.1107384 ", "http://www.ncsu.edu/sorc/myOrgs/details.php?id=529", "http://www.apnatriangle.com/component/option,com_events/Itemid,130/agid,182/catids,19%7C20%7C18/day,12/month,09/task,view_detail/year,2009/". The organization has already helped hundreds of students in India. The organization has 3 chapters in USA, 1 chapter in India and 1 chapter in Europe.Give me the opportunity to work on this article further. I request you to help me in this effort. After I finish working on it if you still feel that the article is not up to the standards or if you feel that the organization is not very important, then I will not complain about it's deletion. Please let me know if I need to do anything else to convince you. Chetantekur (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Regards User:Chetantekur

Enough for me. I userfied the page to User:Chetantekur/Two Cents of Hope where you can work on it. Remember to read the guides I linked to above, they should answer most or all of your questions. If you have further questions that you cannot answer by reading our guides, use {{helpme}} on your talk page to ask a question.
Last but not least, you need to use ~~~~ without the <nowiki>-tags, I just added them to avoid that the software interprets the tildes as a signature. If you just add those four tildes without them, it will show your username, a link to your talk page and the date and time of your post. Regards SoWhy 20:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:SoWhy/TPS

Heh, nice template. :) I hope you don't mind me using it as well? Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course not, that's the reason I "outsourced" it to its own page :-) Regards SoWhy 08:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Stuart Atkinson

Would this count as an author requesting deletion (as best he can since he is banned)? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It might be seen as such but in this case, I would decline a speedy based on it. The G5 speedy was declined already by another admin and the prod on the article was contested. As such, I think this would be too controversial for G7 and should be handled at AFD. Regards SoWhy 08:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion declined: WWE SmackDown

The requested articles have been moved. Thank you.--UnquestionableTruth-- 19:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that. Juliancolton (talk · contribs) did it, so thanks to him. Next time, you might want to add a link to the relevant discussion to the request. Regards SoWhy 20:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Xxxpaatxxx (talk · contribs)

Looks like we had the same idea. :-) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, they say "great minds think alike". Apparently we do, too. Regards SoWhy 14:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My rename request

Well, I haven't really understood. I have written here that I am ThoFreyer at en-wiki. But where do I have to write that I am really ThoFreyer? on my en-wiki user page? - Thanks for your help, regards ThoFreyer (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Regards SoWhy 11:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Wonderful, thanks a lot for your help !! :) The new -> TreehillGrave ton message ici 11:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
You are most welcome. :-) Regards SoWhy 12:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy Talk:Somali Student Association

Hi there you recently deleted my page and i just read your why did i delete your article page. my page was deleted for copyright violation. But Sir, i have all the rights to the page www.tc.umn.edu/~ssa/about.html that the bot found infringement on i am part of the organization and the technology coordinator of it. (i edit the website lol). The Student group is valid and we have over 500 members. if you google Somali Student Association the first link you find should be us. I have added the word Wikipedia inside the about.html where the infringement was found to proof what i am saying.

Thank You!!! SoWhy

Diri0010 (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, being the copyright owner is not enough. The material needs to be sourced under the GFDL as well as the CC-BY-SA licenses or a license compatible with both of them. The homepage in question does not release the material under such a license. Refer to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on how to do so. Remember that this alone is not enough for having the material on Wikipedia. It also needs to be written from a neutral point of view and meet our notability guidelines with all information verifiable using reliable sources. I am not really sure that the material on your homepage meets those requirements, so writing it anew from scratch might be easier. Before writing anything new, you should read our conflict of interest guidelines and maybe read Wikipedia:Your first article. The help desk can help you with any questions that might arise. Regards SoWhy 18:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


Hey thanks SoWhy i understand what you mean and i have read the conflict of interest guidelines and have asked a third person to write what SSA is or is to him. this is alot easier thanks :D Diri0010 (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi SoWhy i fixed the main issue of infringement and have gotten a more cleaner Mission statement can you take a look. I placed it back up thank you. Diri0010 (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you still need to add reliable sources to prove it meets the notability guidelines but it's good enough to address the previous copyright violation concerns. Unless you provide aforementioned sources though, it might be deleted using another process (proposed deletion or articles for deletion). Regards SoWhy 09:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SoWhy/Archive_16&oldid=1248862454"