User talk:TParis/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:TParis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

I believe your category Category:Characters in The Faerie Path is not truly a valid Wikipedia character, as it contains only 1 page, and that is a user page.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just started working on it. Wasn't sure where to put the category while I put it together. Still learning. Working on The Faerie Path and trying to build out some character pages. Found Wiki Character Article Template and it's taking a little longer than I expected to get the first page up. --TParis00ap (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Db-norat and the 7 day part

Howdy. With regards to this edit, you added an invalid template. The file could not be deleted due to that template for 2 reasons. The first is that the file was just uploaded today. F6 applies to files that are at least 7 days old. Also, F6 only applies to files where fair use is claimed. There was no license applied to the file nor was there a text claim of fair use being made. All that being said, I do agree that the file should deleted, but you may want to be a bit more careful of your F6 tagging in the future.--Rockfang (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Roger. I normally don't tag files but I saw "Nude" in the recent changes and then saw the photo. Thanks for letting me know for next time.--TParis00ap (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

concerning article 'physician'

Hallo from Sydney, Australia (hence the odd time stamp). Thank you for your talk page comment about avoiding editing wars with anonymous editors. I've been editing this page in particular for over a year now; I've added a lot including references, and I try to make some explanatory note on the talk page. Unfortunately, another couple of IP-address-only editors have again been deleting material, without leaving any explanation as to why. To me this seems close to vandalism. Both of these IPs are in the US, using the geolocate tool; I don't know if they're on campuses or private. Would you be able to consider rolling back to your own last edited version, please. --DavidB 07:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

An administrator "Shii" has reverted the article and blocked vandalism for a week, apparently at your request. Many thanks. --DavidB 04:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

WuhWuzDat 13:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

speedies

When you place a speedy deletion request, you must include in the edit summary that you are doing so,to help us admins see things quickly when we check. (ah, I see someone else mentioned it to you--Twinkle does help that. Just ignore the features you don't want to use). Incidentally, the bar for speedy A7 is not notability, but the much lower standard of having any indication of significance or importance, & to assert that someone has written several published books is such an indication. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Roger. I cant seem to get Twinkle to work for me, not sure why. I've enabled it and added it to moonbrook.js as well bt niether method does anything for me. I'll try to remember that in the future though.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

WuhWuzDat 21:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Biological Functionalism

Hi mate, I do not understand why my Biological Functionalism article is tagged as requiring more references or sources for verification. My article is composed of 7 sentences, yet it has 5 references. Surely this is enough. I do not understand what more I need to do for this tag to be removed. My references are from reputable academic sources. Could you please explain to me what is wrong with the article? Cheers!Higginson21 (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The article needs to be expanded. That is why I put on the expert tag. It's not a subject I am familar with though and if you feel it is expanded as much as it can be, by all means seek a third party to remove it.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The expansion tag is a different issue. I still do not understand why there is a tag claiming that more references are needed. There are 7 sentences in the article, 5 of which have a citation after them. Surely this is enough. I believe that the tag should be removed. Cheers.Higginson21 (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's really not a big deal. I think the article needs to expand and include more references. However, apparently you view the expand tag to include this and the refimprove tag to be limited to the existing material, so I've removed the tag. It's a decent article and I don't want it to start off with an argument especially since I have no background in psychology. Good luck with the article and let me know how I can help.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the tag! I hope I didn't come across as aggressive; this was not my intention. I appreciate your comments on the article. Thanks!.Higginson21 (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Theseeker4's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reba

No, I have no idea where it came from. It's not really needed, but if you can find one, that might work. I'm really only concerned on fixing her main article for right now, I apologize. =( Dottiewest1fan (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea, you may use that source if you would like, I have personally used it in the past for other artists. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If would like to, it's kind of a requirement for each award program to have separate tables, so if you would like to do that for her, you may, if not I'll just leave it. I just had to move it off the page because it was much to extensive for the main article. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I would be glad to explain. Every award program has to go in a different table. For example, separate awards Reba won from the Grammys should go into one table, CMA's in other, ACM's, etc. For really good examples of award articles that look like this, here is the List of awards received by Alison Krauss article. It was featured Wiki article. And don't worry about what time you have to do it, I understand, take your time =) Dottiewest1fan (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

CSD A3

Thank you for patrolling new pages. However, you recently flagged Classic Dance of Love as CSD A3, which is meant for pages without content. That was not the case, as the page contained an infobox at the time you flagged it. I therefore removed the CSD template. Please, therefore, and study our Criteria for speedy deletion more carefully to avoid premature deletion of the wrong pages. — Sebastian 18:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't feel an infobox was content. That's like having a book with a nice cover but blank pages. But fair enough.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and notification. The bigger problem, as I see it, is that you put the CSD note on the article only 2 minutes after it was created. No book is created in two minutes, and you can't expect an article to be full of content after such a short time, either. Please give editors more time to create their articles before you judge them as "without content". — Sebastian 03:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I generally patrol new edits/pages and mark pages for deletion if they dont meet criteria. Pages should be developed in a user's userspace. Article space is not a sandbox. A book isn't published and then filled in later.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The "should" part is your opinion, but you are in contradiction with the reality of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is and always has been published and then filled in later. That's the way it works. There's a reason why clicking on a red link automatically creates a new page in article space, not in userspace or the sandbox. — Sebastian 01:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC) See also User talk:Balloonman/Why I hate Speedy Deleters#Speedy deletion does not have to mean impatient tagging.

Replied, thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to compliment you on your diplomatic reply on that page. I might continue the discussion there some time; if I do so I will let you know. — Sebastian 17:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: I just mentioned that discussion here. — Sebastian 17:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the compliment. I wasn't sure if I was being too aggressive and defensive.--TParis00ap (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean when you wrote "I feel slightly accused and targetted by Sebastian which is why I took a stance opposite of the subject"? No worries about that! I really appreciate that openness. It was the perfect explanation to help me better understand you. I, too, was somewhat emotional, which probably didn't help. The reason for me is related to your reason: I feel their pain of the page creator. I imagine how attacked they must feel, when an article which they created as a labor of love, such as Classic Dance of Love, suddenly is under threat of immediate deletion, and all they can cling to is an impersonal, automatically added template. While I certainly did not mean to make you feel accused and targetted, it may be a blessing in disguise: It gives us an occasion to connect with those feelings of being under attack. I recently started giving people personalized recommendations, such as which WikiProject they may want to join. I would be happy if everybody who proposes a page for speedy deletion would make a habit out of doing that, at least for newbies. — Sebastian 06:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's why I always use the welcome template when I notify someone of a deletion. I didn't get my first welcome template until a few months ago (I've been an editor for a year) after I was in a disagreement with another editor. At first I was insulted by the welcome template because I felt he was calling me a newbie, which I am but it was kind of a slap in the face. Then when I thought about it I wished I had received it sooner because 1) It would have saved me a lot of disagreement and heartache if I had easier access to policy, and 2) I would have felt welcomed. It seems like Wikipedia is easy to use as long as you know how to use it. For example, below my disagreement about quotes, I didn't know there was a policy (essay) about proper quoting, but doing a search for "WP:Quote" I found it. I never knew you could do "WP:(search)" until I knew that policies existed and they could be found by searching like that. The welcome message definitely helped me and I make it priority to add it. When I do newpage watching/recent edit, I also look for editors that have empty talk pages; to be honest though, it's been awhile since I've done that.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right that welcome messages help. I'm not too concerned about such messages to be taken the wrong way; it does happen, but we can only go so far. If a person has takes a well intended personal message so bad that he or she stops contributing here, then he or she is probably not the right person to participate in a collaboration like this anyway. We can not do more than to give them a fair, appropriate chance. However, people are different, and one size doesn't fit all. You are a senior airman; it is probably your second nature to quickly understand complex instructions. For many newbie-page-creators (there should be a term for people whose first action here is creating a new page), especially for some from third-world countries, the sheer amount of text, with all the references to things that might be interesting, can be overwhelming and off-putting. Partly for that reason, I developed {{welcomeshort}} and {{welcomeshorter}}. Instead of slapping a big chunk of text on the newbie's talk page, I personalize the message, such as by pointing them to an appropriate Wikiproject, or sometimes even tell them what they can do instead of posting their text on Wikipedia (e.g. here). — Sebastian 21:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I also found this which is awesome for new page creators: Wikipedia:Article_wizard2.0--TParis00ap (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I noticed that link in some messages, but I haven't gotten around to try it out myself. So you feel it works well? — Sebastian 21:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's actually really good. It takes you through the entire decision making process of how to create an article. I just played with different options and I found the information to be very useful for newbies. If you say you want to create an article about yourself, it points you to RfC and information about conflicts of interest. If you say you want to make one for your business, it asks if it is notable based on a short list of criteria and also points the user to WP:Company for more information. It's great.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll recommend it to people, where appropriate. (BTW, I hope you didn't overlook my reply above your mention of the wizard, which could easily happen due to the mixed indent style of this conversation.) — Sebastian 07:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I did see it and completely agree with it. If I knew more about WikiProjects I might do the same.--TParis00ap (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for saying that! I realize that more people may feel like you, and I just added a little how-to text at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee#Personalize your message. I also included the Article Wizard - thanks for your recommendation! — Sebastian 05:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Cindy is a wood

Thanks for fixing my typo here :). Edit conflicted with you. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, no problem. I was actually about to post on your talkpage Wikipedia:Template_messages/Deletion#Speedy_deletion which lists all the speedy templates and I use it all the time when I can't remember the exact template name. Infact, I had to add {{db-corp}} because I thought it was {{db-company}} but couldn't find it anywhere. Also, if you have some CSD history, you can request NPWatcher privillges. It's a small application that really makes tagging easy. It automatically notifies users and does all the work for AfD noms. Really great tool. Anyway, happy nominating.--TParis00ap (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

He, already have NPWather thanks :), I'm currently trying to cut down on my automated edits, because I failed an RfA, and one of the concerns was over use of automated tools. So now I have the CSD I use memorised, in this case, I meant to type {{G10}} but hit "2" instead of "1" by accident. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That's too bad. I know a few admins that turn down CSDers for using automated tools. Infact, I've been in a discussion here about CSD tagging and this essay is a fairly good essay about how we can hurt the encyclopedia as speedy taggers. You might find it interresting. Has other links to several other good essays that really openned my mind to the criteria for speedy delete that I never realized I didn't understand so well. Hopefully it helps you on your next RfA maybe.--TParis00ap (talk) 05:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange, I was looking at that essay just earlier on today :D, I'll read through it properly since you recommend it. I know what you're saying about thinking you understand CSD, and then realising you don't ;), doesn't help that it's always changing, I've embarrassed myself a couple of times by quoting old policies which have since been changed :D. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Anna Hassan

With all due respect, could you point out the relevant rule or stipulation in Wikipedia which states that first-person quotes are "unencyclopedic". Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello and good morning. WP:Quote states these three things:

"Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation. As an editor, it is your responsibility to read the source of the quotation thoroughly, in order to prevent misrepresentation."
"Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed. If not used verbatim, any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."
"the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided. "

I felt the quotations in your article were both excessive and didn't flow with the article. They were just...there. Also, the first quote is herself tooting her own horn. She is not a reliable source on her own changes. She is not a third party source. To avoid the WP:3RR, I'll ask for a third party to take a look at the article.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for the apology. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Don't get into trouble at work over Wikipedia. It's not worth it. Whatever it is can usually wait. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Jasper Becker

- Thank you for helping me with the coding on the Jasper Becker page, and being so quick with it! It looks much better now that the references are at at the bottom. :) Pumpkin.
  - No problem--TParis00ap (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

A stupid question -- but how did you do it? I looked back on the Becer page, and the coding looks exactly the same. All I do is highlight the bit I want footnoted and click on the "reference" icon, but that doesn't seem to do it. Pumpkin888 (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I added the following code to the end:

==References==
{{reflist}}

Good luck and happy editting!--TParis00ap (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Good job

hello my friend, just visited your talk page. I see you are doing the same job as i do, new pages and recent changes patrolling. They seem to be some familiarity in characters you deal with and those i deal with. Most characters or contributors whose articles are deleted are new contributors, with nothing on their pages, poor contributing history and so on. please continue doing this vital job in defending credible knowledge. Well done. Freshymail-user_talk:fngosa--the-knowledge-defender 18:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--TParis00ap (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you!--TParis00ap (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Change

Hi, I only changed it because I thought it was about the "accomplishments" of a person, not a hoax. I can see how this is a major COI. You were not in error in any way, I just read it differently. Sorry for any trouble I may have caused you, Tarheel95 (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

I started a report about it on WP:ANI. Joe Chill (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Good faith vs. vandalism

I am a little surprised with your treatment on User talk:JAMESJERLIN over his creation of the article Vadakkanadu, and for another on your use of rollback - for example the first edit that got caught up in the rollback[1] simply added the name of the nearest city and parliament something. What harm does it do to put the page on your watch list and clean it up a bit? The rule (seldom followed) is that good faith edits are never reverted, they are instead revised. That is what you did the first time, but not later. I really don't see how you expect a new editor to have any clue about what references are and how to find them. Apteva (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello and good afternoon. At first I thought the user was just trying to create an article about a village and added some unneccessary edits about a local church there. However, afterwards when I read his contributions I noticed that he was adding that information to others articles. Then I noticed that the first village he created exists inside the second and third village and the church is in the first and third. That suggests to me that this whole thing is a hoax. While I am a huge supporter of WP:AGF, I've respectfully asked the users to discontinue the edits, with a welcome message of course. The users continued the edits and User:RUL3R felt they constituted vandalism, which I agreed with. I was going to place a final warning again, but felt the user page had plenty of warnings to support bringing to ANI/V. He made the same edits to Vadakkanadu, Tiruvattar, and Chenkody.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless they are clearly a vandal only account, I would as a rule give any newbie at least three days to sort things out here. All of the cities or villages they have been editing are real, as verified by a Google search for each, so they are clearly (to me) a newbie making a useful, but misguided contribution. The edit I took out was over the top, but not worthy of a warning. Please don't bite the newbies. We need them. Apteva (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw hits for Vadakkanadu as well but none of them were really much of anything other than directories or lists of words ect. I found a couple hits about churches and what not but nothing substantial. I was most concerned with the editor adding the information about his Church and the return of Christ to three articles, even though they were fairly closely related. However, I'll keep the three day rule in mind for folks who are not blatent vandalism.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

When you have been at it a long time it is hard to remember what your first day was like. I can guarantee that many people have no clue that there are any talk pages for quite some time. Also, FYI welcome messages, including firstpage, should by subst'd, so that we/they can see what it looked like when they were welcomed. That's why the sig showed up as tildas, because of it not being subst'd. And by the way, keep up the good work! Apteva (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chenkody

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

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Page move

When you moved Norman Lamont to Norman Lamont (1942), and then changed the old title into a disambiguation page, you inadvertently failed to check the 100+ other Wikipedia articles that contain links to the old title and fix them to link to the new title if appropriate. Of course, it is possible that some of those links were referring to a different "Norman Lamont," so they each need to be checked individually, but it is very likely that the great majority of them were referring to the Conservative ex-Chancellor and so need to be revised to link to that article. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed, at WP:RM, that the move be reverted since I believe that the modern pol is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. After I moved the page, there was a template that had the link in it and was included on several pages. I changed the template and I was waiting for Wikipedia to update the cache of the "What links here" page before I fixed the rest of the links. I already began the process though as my contribs page should prove. However, if you feel it must be reverted, I understand, I was just trying to help.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so you did. Sorry I overlooked that; I didn't mean to cast aspersions on you personally, although I do tend to agree with Andrew that the Chancellor is probably the primary topic for this title anyway. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Someone else created the original disambig page but they didn't use the disambig template nor did they add links to the disambig page at the beginning of the articles so I assumed they didn't know and I should help. Unfortunately, I didn't know about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and I may have made a bit of a mess that I intended to clean up. I'll wait to see if the move is reversed before I update anymore links though.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

I'm always happy to help anyone who requests it, and I like to think I do so impartially and logically, but it's always nice to be complimented and I am grateful. As always, I'm at your service in the future if you have any questions, and I'll try to answer them as best I can. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR

I have added multiple sources. There is a valid public concern about H1N1. Sadman64 (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

AWARD!!!

		The Medicine Barnstar
		I Benedict award you for your Cool cap article. Thanks for your hard work. - BennyK95 - Talk 17:02, October 9 2009 (UTC)

I went to put the article on your userpage and I accidentaly messed it up sorry. I don't know how to fix it. Sorry again.- BennyK95 - Talk 19:02, October 9 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you for the award!--TParis00ap (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome. Thanks again.- BennyK95 - Talk 22:31, October 9 2009 (UTC)

Re: Tuggerah_Lakes_golf_Club

Thank you for notifying me. I removed the warning from the talk page already. – Zntrip 21:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

RE : Children

Not really, but we practice judgment based on suppression policy. Interesting proposal, I'll pass it on to my colleagues for consideration. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Policy box

Yeah I saw it somebody elses page and thought "wow" and copied it aswell. Do you like my archive picture too? I got that from commons.Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3

Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 19:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

On orphans

That the image is orphaned is a fact, nothing there to misrepresent. You may not have realized it but orphan notice has a 7 day timer specifically to give any case of contended orphaning a chance to get worked out: it's not, by itself, a speedy deletion notice when it is added. The notion that the person orphaning the image can't place the orphan notice is new to me, and at odds with the long standing use of the template.

In any case— the fair-use tag provided was obviously invalid: the use disagreed with the clear language on the tag itself, a speed deletion criteria had I been looking for one. The timer is a pretty reasonably measure to make sure that images aren't left dangling while giving people a chance to sort out anything that needs to be sorted out.

If I've managed to clear up a concern that the tag would cause an excessively hasty deletion, I'd appreciate it if you'd revert your reversion of the tag.

Cheers.--Gmaxwell (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You have. I do not get involved with images often but most of Wikipedia's policies is common sense and it just didn't seem reasonable that if you orphan an image you could mark it for deletion as such. However, if I am wrong, I'm not going to argue it and I apologize for doing it. As you can see, I did not contest the fair use criteria for deletion and I am not opposed to the image being deleted, only that it didn't seem right that you orphaned and then marked it. Anyway, I will revert it shortly after posting the tb on your page. Happy Editting.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No apology is requested or required: I can see why you'd see it that way, and I think it's good to keep an eye out for people trying to abuse process to achieve what reasoned arguments could not. Thanks for your attention and your response. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I am really, really, really sorry!

I am really, really, really sorry! I've been duped! I have to confess that I did not read "This". I thought that you had admitted to being rude. As it turns out I was played false. You were not rude. I was sloppy. i have read though the oppose material and it is very unfair. The facts are you will make a great admin. Time for me to do some penance. 0nce again sorry. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, to be honest it is really up for opinion. I can see how it could seem I was being rude or pushy, but it wasn't my intent. I definitely hold no grudge on anyone who felt it was rude, and I hold none on you. Thanks for the apology though, it is appreciated.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Following on from your comments at your AfD

I would be happy to go through what I see as the problems, but not while your AfD is still ongoing, it needs to be done in slow time without pressure. Drop me a note when the AfD is over. SpinningSpark 19:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Rog, will do. I am interested in what you have to say, though, as I am a bit prideful in my CSD work. Hopefully you can knock my pride a little and offer me some good crit because I am always looking to improve.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:EMCEEHOOD

Over the evening I thought about this a bit more and decided it would be sensible to have other admins keep an eye on this individual too; see the bottom of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (I stupidly made it impossible for the link to take you directly there, sorry). I believe he is coming to the very end of his rope, probably today. I hope this meets your request of yesterday; let me know if you think more is required. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

He was immediately permablocked. Apparently I AM too Pollyanna-ish when it comes to the possibility of leopards changing their spots, if you'll forgive the mixed metaphor. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Spylocke

In one of your edit summaries to the above article, you said the content from [2] is licensed under the Creative Commons license. There doesn't seem to be a CC notice on that website, so how do you know it's been released under that license? Regards, The leftorium 16:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It is on the Terms and Conditions page under "Your user of the site" it says "All of the content available through the site is subject to the copyrights and trademarks of us, our partners or users. We grant you a license to reprint, republish or reuse any content on the site for non-commercial purposes under the Creative Commons' Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, provided you provide attribution to the Comic Vine community."--TParis00ap (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that. (Sorry!) Information from that website still can't be used on Wikipedia, though. "Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial 3.0" = "CC-By-NC 3.0" and not "CC-By-SA 3.0". Noncommercial licenses can't be used on Wikipedia (see here). The leftorium 16:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ohh, my bad then.--TParis00ap (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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

RFA feedback

Thanks for taking my feedback in the right spirit. Some further view:

"If one of the editors proceeded to attack me or vandalize my user page, I would see additional help from other administrators." While this may seem right, this simply allows the editor to game the system by driving away any admin who disagrees them. In my view a better approach is to to ignore attacks against oneself (i.e. don't block an editor solely for making them), but not let such attacks or accusations of bias to drive one away from mediating an issue. (If you spend time at ANI, you'll see several examples of editors trying to counter-accuse the complainant or any responding admn, in order to muddy the water.)
Remember that, every admin is an editor first. So if you can help resolve an issue by participating in a content debate, do so - that is to the maximal benefit to an encyclopedia. Of course, once you are a participant as an editor, you should not use your admin tools in that debate. But maintaining a distance or studied ignorance of a dispute just to retain the ability to act as an admin, is getting ones priority wrong.
Don't be a slave to written policies, but instead think of what is in best interest of building an encyclopedia. For example with respect to Q8, you don't need to a written policy to decide the issue: since the image has already been discussed and decided to be unsuitable for the article, you (or any editor in fact) can safely "inline" the image, so that there is still a link to the image from the talk page for archival purposes, while the image itself (which is possibly a distraction) is not displayed. If someone objects, you can discuss with them why they think displaying the image on the talk page still serves some purpose, and take it from there.
In response to Q11, of course there are several situations in which it would be in the best interest of the encyclopedia to block even a registered user/admin without any prior warnings. For example, if I see even a user like User:Jimbo Wales or User:Newyorkbrad suddenly adding goatse image to our random wikipedia pages, I would immediately block him, assuming that the account has been compromised, or the user had really flipped! In such a case, our first priority is to protect the encyclopedia, and we can try to resolve the underlying issue next. (This is an extreme example, but there can be practical scenarios).
User BigBobsUsedCarsMichigan should not only be blocked for 48 hours to prevent spamming, but needs to be softblocked under WP:SPAMNAME and asked to change name + stop spamming.
In response to Q12, remember that a non-free image of a living person can be usable if the depiction of the person in that image is in some ways iconic; see Phan Thị Kim Phúc for a prime example. The question is not worded clearly enough to know if it envisages such situation - so your answer is not "wrong".

Again, I am pointing all these out only as a form of feedback to you, since I consider you to be a very good future RFA candidate. However, as I stated in my oppose, I think you would gain from further mainspace experience so that you know what kinds of conflicts arise in practice and how they are best handles - keeping our encyclopedic aims foremost. In case your RFA doesn't pass this time (or even if it does!), I would recommend that you involve yourself more in mainspace editing, or if that doesn't hold your interest, at least at the NPOV, BLP, RSN, Fringe noticeboards to broaden your experience. And of course, continue to do what you enjoy here! Cheers.
PS: Not all admins and RFA reviewers will agree with my viewpoints expressed above or at your RFA page, so don't take these to be the "correct" answers. Abecedare (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, they were very insightful. You may have just openned yourself up to talk page stalking by me now, though, I tend to do that to the most helpful. I knew that every administrator was an editor, and I knew not to use admin tools when I am involved in a debate, but when you say that I should get involved in the debate and not use the admin tools, that's a new concept for me. I like it and I'll have to reflect more on it. I have been interested in getting involved in ANI, but I am not sure what I could do. I guess I'll have to take a closer look. I'll also check out the NPOV and BLP noticeboards as well. I don't know much about BLP, but it does interest me a little and I'd be interested in getting involved. I like things that are straight forward A) B) and C) and I think that is what BLP mostly involves. I realize other editors may have different opinions, but I think everyone generally has the same idea behind their opinions: the betterment encyclopedia. Thanks for coming by and offering the great advice.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that you 'should' get involved at ANI or any other noticeboards, just that you may find it interesting and eye-opening (since I sense you enjoy grappling with policy conundrums). It is really important on wikipedia to do only what one enjoys (as long as it's not misaligned with the project goals); doing what one feels one "should", inevitably leads to burnout. So take some time and browse any of these noticeboards and see what you like/don't like. Happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Your pretty spot on about my interest in policies. I actually have been interested in ANI and ANV, but the pages take so long to load that it makes it difficult to browse and learn unless I have a few hours. I am also beginning to get interested in copyright a little, but we'll see where that leads. This RfA has opened several new opportunities in areas that I may have some interest in and I am going to have to reflect after it is over.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:F**K attribution question

Hi TParis00ap. Unless I misunderstood completely, you seem to be attributing the essay to User:SoWhy but that user doesn't seem to have edited the essay at all. Just wondering if I'm missing something ...... --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I could've sworn he wrote it. I guess he only wrote WP:10CSD and WP:NEIA (and others, but these are two I enjoy). I hope he isn't offended at my attributing that to him, nor the actual author being forgotten. I'll send an apology to both.--TParis00ap (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. Sorry to see your RfA isn't going great but the good news is you're handling yourself well! Good luck! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Meh, it doesn't sound like anyone has a problem with me or what I am doing, they just think I need to wait a bit. That's fine with me, I am in no rush and it's really not a big deal. Some folks have made really good points (and others havent).--TParis00ap (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You added comments on the article's talk page so...

...you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Bra (band), Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 15:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA

I am sorry to inform you that your RfA did not demonstrate that there was consensus among the participants that you should be given the admin tools at this time. I understand that this is both disappointing and frustrating, and as someone who failed RfX's myself, I can empathize. I may give you some unasked for advice, I would suggest to take a day or three to allow the emotions to subside a bit, and then re-read the opinions so as to best identify the areas in which the community feels you have the most room for improvement. Working on those areas over a significant period of time will be the most efficient way for you to become an editor whom the project would want as a sysop. Best of Luck! -- Avi (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. Though I opposed your RfA, I just wanted to pop a quick note here. Although you are a relatively new user, you did extremely well at your RfA for someone of such tenure, and that is reflective of your knowledge and enthusiasm for Wikipedia. I hope to see you around RfA again a couple of months into the new year. If you just continue what you are doing (and perhaps take a dive into WP:FA to truly master content policies), you shall surely be a shoe-in next time you run. Please feel free to contact me if you need anything at all; I shall be glad to help. Regards, NW (Talk) 22:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you. I don't think a few days will be neccessary, I prepared myself before nominating myself that there was a good chance it would not succeed. I see all comments as positive, even the opposes. I was treated fairly and respectfully and I am happy (not overly excited) about the result. Thanks and I'll see you around!--TParis00ap (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Best of luck next time around, you're on the right track. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Chzz's RfA

I hope you don't mind me commenting here, to spare the AfD from further bloat. I agree that Chzz didn't make the right decision when he deleted all but the first sentence - he should have deleted that as well, as it wasn't sourced either :). To be accurate, he actually left the See also, External links and categories as well! Seriously though, had he subsequently sent the article to AfD, I'd be more inclined to agree with your conclusion about his intentions. As it is, it looks like was following what seems to be his usual routine in patrolling new pages: CSD the non-notable; trim and prod if that's declined. I should make the disclaimer that I don't know Chzz from Adam; but I think the pile-up opposes over what I see as trivial concerns has touched a raw nerve with me. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I had written a nice paragraph but my computer disconnected from the internet and it was lost. So I will retype it tomorrow, it's bed time. Sorry.--TParis00ap (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Boys and Girls (Pixie Lott song)

Wow! Thanks Paris. It is a shame he perceived my revert as vandalism. I am just trying to keep the article at a good standard :) • вяαdcяo chat 05:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Bradcro has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Reply

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

--Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Erk!

How embarrassing, to check your User Page and discover you are writing an article on my "15 minutes of fame" example AND review TV shows. With all that inadvertent provocation, you did not take umbrage. What a guy!

Georgejdorner (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I try not to get personally invested in articles so I dont get beat up when criticized. It's all part of WP:DGAF. I don't really review TV shows, just interested in a couple. I don't mind the thing about the kid at all, a lot of people feel the same way and it's a valid point of view. How could I be upset?--TParis00ap (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Slightly Off-Topic

But I'm curious enough to ask. You mention on your userpage you're a) a fan of Star Trek and b) a member of the USAF. What do you think of Stargate SG-1? --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(blushes) Oops. Silly me. And only one space down on Twinkle, too... --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I love Stargate. I wish I could have been there when Richard Dean Anderson received an honorary Major General rank from General Jumper.--TParis00ap (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(grins) I was asking your opinion because of that. I just found the idea of giving him that rank for being on a TV show crazy, but brilliant. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 03:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it was done because he brought great credit and publicity to the USAF. He portrayed the USAF in a very favorable light which improved civilian understanding of the USAF and interest in our activities.--TParis00ap (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I know and I applaud it. I grew up watching SG-1 and MacGyver. I still find it funny though. I presume that he has no official general-esque powers though? --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 03:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. Honorary titles are not new to the military, they are basically just a certificate. He still can't walk into the pentagon with a star on his shoulder and start giving orders.--TParis00ap (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: subst: Thanks for the help. I get it now. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Chinchillbro

Hey there. I saw your comment on my talk page and certainly welcome your comments - I seem to recall a recent RfA that had issues due to the nominee having had issues with CSD tagging, as well as of course your RfA in which comments were made concerning a lack of CSD/page deletion policy knowledge. I tagged that article with a small amount of deliberation; as Twinkle does not contain every category in its CSD tagger I was left somewhat uncertain about whether it was nonsense or a test page. That said, the idea of a king chinchilla did seem rather nonsensical to me, hence me tagging it as such. The problem with G1, I suppose, is that it implies the article text must be something along the lines of "asdi;ghowerughlaskbvlauyrgli;uasdf" to be tagged under that category. Upon further review of the category, though, I'm still left questioning: "with no meaningful content or history" seems to be at issue with "excludes poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism and hoaxes, fictional material, coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material." In the end, you are probably right in saying it should have been tagged as G2; given the contradictory nature of G1 it would have indeed been more wise to tag it as a test page and avoid any potential drama. Too, using A1 is always troublesome; it identified the subject but lacked anything in the way of clarification. -sigh- CSD tags need to be less dramatic and more clear cut, lest we revisit your and -whomever it was'- RfA. I hope this comment makes sense as a whole; feel free to respond with any thoughts you have. --tennis man 13:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I think from now on I'll definitely utilize WIHSD whenever I take up the tagging machine and work on NPP. It definitely makes good points and is exactly the sort of thing we should keep in mind when speedy tagging (or otherwise). I think, too, that people should more often utilize AfD and PROD; they could save a great deal of drama. Anyway, don't mind my tangentiality >_> Happy editing! --tennis man 22:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

RfA/Replicators

Of course you are aware that I spoke for you in your recent RfA; I meant it, and I rarely notice or contribute to RfAs so was happy to have the opportunity to speak for you at yours. I'm sorry that yours didn't succeed, but I think the short time you've been contributing was a factor. (Apparently quality was not as much of a factor.) What I'm wondering is, now that the dust has settled, is there anything that you think you might like to work on, and is there any way in which I can assist you? I have to say that my perception has been that "admin coaching" is not looked upon as being appropriate by everyone who contributes to RfAs. I myself benefited immeasurably from that type of relationship with User:Pedro and would like to "pay it forward", but you may think that the drawbacks outweigh the potential benefits. You might also consider that I'm not that widely-experienced an admin and so my assistance would be limited to my areas of experience. But if there's something I can do to help you, let's talk; I think you will be a good admin and I would like to see you get the mop if you still want it.

Incidentally, I suspect from some of the material above that you might possibly be impressed if I tell you that I've appeared on both SG-1 and Atlantis as an extra; I hope to "three-peat" with Universe if my schedule permits. In neither, alas, can you tell who I am, since my face doesn't appear, but I'm the only face-down dead Replicator of my acquaintance. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello A4T! I appreciate your comments, I was hoping you'd notice my RfA because I didn't want to be accused of canvassing if I invited you to it. I would love the coaching and I am not concerned about the reprecussions at an RfA. If the community feels I am not prepared or there are other concerns, it is their decision and I am fine with contributing however the community feels best for me. Do I think your not a widely-experienced admin? Not at all, I don't expect to find someone who knows it all. You've always provided me more than just an answer, you've given me an explanation which has broadened my understanding. That's a valuable trait and it is what consistently brings me back to your talk page. I would love the coaching. The areas I am interested in moving into are Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts, WP:RfA, WP:ANI, and WP:GA. I'm not much of a writer, so I want to contribute to WP:GA on more of a formatting and fix/find cites type of way. I have sort of dipped into WP:ANI a little but I am not sure exactly how to get started at the others. As you may already know, I also participate in WP:CSD, WP:AFD, and the welcoming committee. Any help and advice is welcome or any other areas you think I might be interested getting involved in. Also, I welcome any other coaching that you may provide. Thanks for taking the time and interest in me. v/r--TParis00ap (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think that is awesome that you've been on Stargate and Atlantis!--TParis00ap (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The only one of your areas that I have more than a bare smattering of experience with is WP:RfA. I have only asked for help at ANI, not given it for the most part; I doubt I'll ever achieve bringing an article to GA status because in my chosen field (detective fiction) citations are very, very scarce. I'll give RfA some thought and see if there's anything with which I can be of assistance or useful advice. I will say this; it's rare that I comment on anyone with whom I haven't interacted personally, and I have never expressed an "oppose" opinion. I think that last can be taken as evidence of what I'd call my belief that WP needs more admins, lots of them, and in a hurry, but also that I tend to be a non-confrontational type of person. When I do comment, I try to take a random sample of the person's edits, and examine them -- what I try to look for are civility and helpfulness, because those are qualities I personally value and feel are useful here. But, as it says all over RfAs, the reasons are different for just about every person. I think the basics are editing, working harmoniously with other editors, and understanding something about Wikipedia policies and the Wikipedia community; I have to say, though, that half of what you need to know as an admin you cannot learn until you get the mop. My opinion about how to answer the questions posed in an RfA is pretty much the same as my general attitude; know the relevant policy, follow it, and if you don't know what to do, ask someone who does. I'll give this more consideration and see if there is anything else I can offer. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Also Smallville, X-Men films I and III, and lots of other stuff. Because so many things are filmed here, many Vancouverites, like me, treat extra work as a hobby and the occasional brushes with celebrity are fun. I sign up for crowd scenes on weekends and holidays and the like; I'm frequently a dress extra in business scenes, wearing my own suits & ties. Back in the 80s, I got Bette Davis's autograph, which is my high point (extras do NOT ask stars for autographs, it's against the rules). Accounting4Taste:talk 00:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that WA or Canada? I used to live in Oregon. Not that I am a Twilight fan, but I know they were filming in Vancover and Portland, did you try to get involved?--TParis00ap (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver, Canada. I missed both Twilight films, they were usually filming too far out of town for that to be possible for me (and the calls were for very small numbers of extras -- I generally only get to do large crowd scenes or "business interiors" because I don't actively pursue the work and have a "day job"). The latest thing I've done was as a party guest for an episode of Smallville some months ago. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning

Saw your warnign and wanted to let you know that the material being inserted is all sourced to blogs and is a violation of BLP. I began a thread over at WP:BLPN if you want to look it over there. Thanks. WVBluefield (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Although it may be poorly sourced, only pure vandalism is a reason for breaking the WP:3RR. I'd recommend just letting it settle in WP:BLPN until an uninvolved 3rd editor can resolve the dispute. As I am not strong in WP:BLP, I can't make that determination, but I did want to let you guys know your crossing a line and help you avoid a block.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, but BLP violations do not count when considering 3RR. WVBluefield (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What counts as an exemption under WP:BLP is very controversial itself and a more liberal admin may feel that although the material is poorly sourced, it is not negative or attacking of the subject and isn't a WP:3RR exemption. But thanks for being level headed about it, the reverting seems to have stopped on both sides so hopefully we can find resolution without blocks.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning, but tagging regulars should really not be necessary :). I will stop restoring the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Even regulars need a kick once in awhile. ;) All in the name of consensus and wiki harmony.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for participating in my RfA. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that you opposed me so I can improve in those areas. ( including my english )

Have a great day ! --Zink Dawg -- 00:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at A8UDI's talk page.
Message added 13:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A8 UDI 13:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"I could use all the advice you can give"

You wrote "I could use all the advice you can give". So my advice to you is not to express any opinion about any material (including websites) written in a language you do not read. Thank you.Eddau (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Unfortunately I must decline it because it assumes I do not know Hewbrw and also assumes that my opinion on any article on Wikipedia is unwelcome, which it is not. Since you do not own an article, I can apply the policies such as WP:V and WP:N as well as WP:CSD appropriately. Thanks again for taking the time to come visit my user page and I appreciate that you read it and got a better understanding of who I am. My counter advice to you is to read the relevant policies I've linked and also try to work more collaboratively with folks around you. Happy editting!--TParis00ap (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

well, since you wrote "שִירוֹ‏נֶ‏ט means Shiro according to Google translate", I conclude that you do not even recognize the Hebrew alphabet. You did not even noticed that Google translate, translated only a half of the word. Do you really enjoy talking about thing you do not know? Eddau (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to my user page. The matter is not that I do not know Hebrew, but that you assumed off the bat I didn't. I don't make assumptions about you, I'd like you to not make them about me and treat me with some respect. As for your final question, I won't even dignify that with an answer. Thanks again for coming to see me though and happy editting.--TParis00ap (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I bumped your cookie template to a simpler link to the template, hope you don't mind - it was going to make discussion difficult, should we go over the cookie, under the cookie, etc. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 20:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Understood, no problem.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I was amused to see you use a photo by one of my favourite photographers of all time, on your /child subpage. Ever poked around her Flickr account? I'm sure I've uploaded a dozen of her images, they're wonderful. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 20:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh, actually no I haven't. I just did a search on Wikipedia "Image:Children" to find it. I didn't see a need to upload new pictures when I was positive there had to be a picture of some children in one article or another. Glad you got a laugh though. =)--TParis00ap (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

Good going, Staff Sergeant! --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--TParis00ap (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"bad faith editing"

I appreciate the warning, but I'll ask that you assume good faith. It appears that you are able to ascertain my intentions, and if there are any questions they should be directed to the respective discussions. The COA I have is in my disagreement with the policy, not it's application. If the consensus is that the two female Sgts are notable because of their gender I'm happy to go with that, but then the distinction needs to be made more clear in the articles themselves. As a scholar of military history I'd be happy to do that editing myself, but as I've stated in many places: We need a clear standard. Since much of the pushback on these two articles mirrors my own feelings, I started a debate on the WP:N page you may want to join in on. Thanks for your attention, and thank you for your service to our country! Rapier1 (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to my talk page. If you continued to read my comment, you'll notice I did not accuse you of bad faith editing, only suggested that continuing to participate in the discussions and even nominating articles could give off that perception. Please also assume good faith in my comments as an effort to help you in the future rather than accuse you for the past. You might get better response by starting a discussion on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military talk page or at least notifying them of your WP:N discussion. Happy editting.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, congratulations on your promotion! Second, my apologies I did, in fact, misunderstand what you were attempting to say, although semantically your comment did start off with the accusation and even later continued in a warning tone. Water under the bridge, as it were. The article I'd written on my father was in fact written as more of a "memorial" (which Wipedia is not) and should have been deleted as it stood, I will agree to that, and that is not my concern here. During the debate of notability, a consensus was formed by the few people debating it that the Silver Star and Distinguished Service Cross were not notable. I disagreed, but was outvoted. I and many others started editing along those lines, and many articles that depended on those criteria were removed. The pushback on the articles of Sgts. Hester and Lee hit close to home and started to bother me. My only intention now is to bring the issue of war hero notability to the fore and have it debated. Currently, the argument is that our war heroes are not as "notable" as a guy who played 26 games in one season of Major League baseball 30 years ago or a woman who poses nude for Playboy. Thank you for your suggestions in making this debate more well-known, and if you haave others, please share them with me. From one Trek fan to another: Live long, and prosper. Rapier1 (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Good luck on clarifying notability criteria for soldiers.--TParis00ap (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Try to understand before you delete

You deleted the info i provided with Gurais article. I had provided links in refrence section. and have not attributed it. i only clarified the importance of the refrence in article. i didnt added anything wrong in refrence section. refrence section is made to provide information to where from we go the content of the article. so dont try to delete it again. you are wasting my hardwork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heman60 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Please try to understand Wikipedia policies. You've tried several different ways to attribute content to yourself and others in the mainspace. Your attirubtions are properly documented in the history of the page. Also, telling me not to delete content because it wastes your hard work is considered "owning" an article, also against our policies. Thanks for your contributions and happy editting.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

Please take me on good faith on this, I am not trying to start an argument. I am trying to understand a difference for future AfD discussions.

You replied to my comment in the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Perm_Lame_Horse_club_fire discussion where I mentioned that this event was similar to the Rhode island fire earlier this decade. I mentioned that without pointing to the article (honestly, I didn't even know if an article on that existed until after I posted my comment) only for a point of comparison. You called that out as classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. i know the argument well and avoid it whenever possible. But at what point can one use an article for comparison in discussions? I am asking you in particular because you stated your case with a comparison to the bubble boy article. Again, this may read as an attempt to start an argument, and I assure you it is not. I just want to understand the difference between the acceptability of one and not the other.

Thanks.

Vulture19 (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to my page. I think pointing to any other article is risky and I generally avoid it too. I would say the line is the difference of "This article that is similar exists" and "This article that is similar also went through an AfD and was kept for 1) Reason, 2) Other reason, 3) third reason, of which this article also meets two of those three reasons." I think that would be an acceptable use of pointing to other articles. I don't mean to accuse you of any sort of bad faith or devalue your !vote, only saying that your argument doesn't support the !vote well. If you can improve on your keep, I'll strike out my comment.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think my mistake was not separating the first statement from the main gist of my argument. Thanks again Vulture19 (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You can help me

Dear, I am new to this wikipedia. and i hope instead of getting infuriated on me. you will help me. May be i am wrong at some point of time but you being more experinced, you can help me out. regarding your distruptive editing message to me. Brother, i do have to mention the refrence in that article. tell me how can i put a refrence if you call the website provided me as a spam??? regards god bless Zahid Samoon 13:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heman60 (talk • contribs)

Hello and thanks for coming. I'd be more than happy to help you. The reason we cannot use your site as a reference is because it has no editorial control. It doesn't meet our policy on reliable sources. If you just give that article a quick read, you'll understand why personal websites can never be used unless it is an article about you yourself. Also, we cannot use your website in external links either because it violates our policy on external links because it seems to advertise your website. You should never add a link to a site you are involved in. If your site holds credible information and if it can attract traffic on its own without Wikipedia advertising it, then someone else will recognize its merit and add it. You've written very good articles and I would very much hate to see you blocked. Your contributions are very welcome. Just please avoid giving yourself further credit in the article and linking to your website. Credit is given to you when a user goes to the top of the page and clicks "History". They can see every edit that you've made and they can know your exact contributions. There is no need for you to add it into the article. Thank you.--v/r - T P 14:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear paris, thanks for your valuable information. i had put that website just for refrence. now you think it is not fit for that page. i will not add it again it at that page. but i will like to be in touch with you. whenever i need your help. i dont want to advertise my website. actaully if you read few starting lines in that website. you will come to know that i have clearly mentioned that my site is not for commercial or political purposes. But it is only for educational purposes. Brother, actaully we have almost negligible information about Gurez on Net. it was me who started writing on Gurez in Local dalies and newpapers. then i also created a free website on Gurez for the public to know about Gurez Valley. Because this valley is a backward area near LOC between India and Pakistan. I dont have any commercial or political aims. I am a teacher by proffession and want to spread the knowledge; whatever i have. Thanks again. but if you think appropriate by some time that my website is worth to be mentioned in the Refrences. Please do it. i dont have any regrets or animosity with anyone on wikipedia. As i think we all are here to put unknown things infront of the world.i have fair intentions. Hope to learn a lot from you God bless you regards Zahid Samoon 17:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heman60 (talk • contribs)

Hello and welcome back. I'm happy we've been able to come to an agreement. As I have a conflict of interest now, by my removal of your topic, it would actually be inappropriate for me to add it. It's better for us to wait for an uninvolved member to see it by chance and feel it's relevant. You are always more than welcome to stop by and ask questions whenever you need to. I can't be positive I can answer it, but I know a lot of great people that can. Thanks again and happy editting.--v/r - T P 21:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am always hopeful of resolving conflicts. actaully we should have a lot of patience and understanding to resolve conflicts. I am happy we have resolved the conflict. but i fear some one may even delete a article without any refrence. anyways thanks for your nice attitude and helping nature. God Bless Zahid Samoon 11:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heman60 (talk • contribs)

You are right. Your topic is suseptible to WP:V and WP:N criteria for an AfD. But at least it will survive a speedy delete. Just keep an eye on it and keep looking for references.--v/r - T P 12:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA question

Hi there,

I think Hullaballoo did a good job explaining what was wrong about your answer. I wasn't really fishing for anything specific with my question--I was just interested in your analysis of the article--although I had noted that the article states the Code hasn't been updated since 1988, and yet the Code references Operation Iraqi Freedom. Take care, Keepscases (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

iSendit

Perhaps you can further explain to me why my iSendit page was deleted. I cannot find it in the deletion log. I put in the hangon tag, i added content. I understand the "Notable" section and was gathering the information to post when poof, no iSendit page. How can I find out how deleted it, and request it to be restored. what search terms can i use. thanks for your help.grosner (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to my user page. The article was deleted by admin Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs). Although the Hang on tag will slow a deletion, it usually won't prevent it on its own. Admins generally give it a few hours to a day, depending on their personal opinion, and then delete it. What I recommend is that you ask that the page "userfied" which means it is moved to a location such as User:Grosner/ISendit until it is ready to be deployed. Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) can do this for you. Good luck.--v/r - T P 21:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 51 supports, 4 opposes, and 3 neutrals.

MrKIA11 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Riyadh

No worries - to be honest I was glad to see someone voting based on reason - usually terrorism-suspects get either gut reaction "delete - this scum isn't notable, we should erase him from history" or "keep - I always vote keep on everything". Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 00:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nanonote

You're right. Taking a second look, it probably should have been A7. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A MfD you took part in

I've withdrawn my nomination for the reason stated there. Thank you for your participation. Pcap ping 20:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Ret.Prof (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 01:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please help me

H Brother, As you know i am new to wikipedia and am trying to contribute in every possible way. I dont know how to warn people involved in vandalism. Some one 122.162.105.88 (talk) tried to remove content from the Gurais page and vandalize it. by putting wrong and unmatched statements in it. can u tell me how to warn people and will you please have a look on the page of Gurais to look into the matter yourself. Thanks Brother regards Zahid Samoon 21:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heman60 (talk • contribs)

Hey! Wikipedia:Vandalism explains Wikipedia's policy towards vandalism. Basically, the key is to assume good faith on the part of the editor in all but blatent vandalism (such as "Bob sucks" type things). There are warning templates that you can add to the user's talk page. For vandalism, the template is "{{subst:uw-vand1|title of page vandalized}}--~~~~" without the quote marks. This template has ranges of 1-4. You should use these templates in steps so the first vandalism gets the "1" warning and the 4th vandalism get's the "4" warnings. However, the "1" warning assumes good faith and if it is obvious the vandalism was in bad faith you should skip "1" and go to "2". If the vandalism persists after you've used all the warnings, you can go to WP:ANV and make a post about the user's vandalism. If you have not used all the appropriate warns, it is unlikily to result in a block for the user. But if you have used the appropriate warns and your warns are justified, the user may receive a 24-48 hour block that will hopefully curb their behavior. Good luck and happy holidays.--v/r - T P 23:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Brother,,, God bless you. Happy Xmas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heman60 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy the season!

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

May this season bring you joy and cheer TParis00ap! --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 11:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll

You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.

It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).

As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!

Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Re Henry Dolan

Henry Dolan, fighter ace of the FIRST World War, was honored with the Military Cross (which is a heck of a lot more prestigious than anything I ever won during my time in the Air Force). That award is noted in the info box.

Georgejdorner (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to poke a stick at you, but you might want to revisit this article to see how it has grown despite the lack of Google listings. It might be instructive.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

On behalf of ALL the editors who worked on the article, I accept the compliment.

Say, are you a Tech Sergeant already?

Georgejdorner (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Olympic Cool Cap.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Olympic Cool Cap.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

How could I get moving toward an RfA?

I read over your review multiple times now, and, in reading RfAs, I noticed dispute resolution came up somewhat often. Do you think, therefore, that working on informal mediation would help me in this way? Also, for reviewing me:

Hamtechperson has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Have a Cookie! Cheers! Ham tech person 00:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

TParis00ap has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for the cookie. Yes, dispute resolution is a critical admin quality no matter a person's personal interests and voluntary contributions to the project. If you partake in some informal dispute resolution, that will definitely be considered, either positively or poorly depending on you, in an RfA. As an admin, you are expected to be open and willing to communicate your reasonings, consider alternatives, and sometimes admit fault or being wrong. I definitely recommend getting involved in that. Things will not always go well for you here, and you will undoubtably make mistakes, and other editors want to know that you can handle those situations without getting stressed, angry, or resentful. The key to adminship is not always having the right answer, but keeping the best interests of the project in mind and working toward the right answer. Don't get me wrong though, admins really shouldn't wander into areas they arnt sure about and then start using the tools. However, even in areas we consider our strengths (mine being WP:CSD), we sometimes make mistakes or read things differently than others. Especially in CSD, there are many different opinions on what community consensus actually is. The rules are very vague, for a reason, and opinions differ. Even disagreeing editors can agree on a compromise. Also, if you do get involved in the dispute resolution process, you'll be exposed to a variety of issues, policies, opinions, and content facing the project. However, to answer the key question you have (How could you get moving toward an RfA): the answer is to take part in RfAs. By taking part in RfAs, you'll be directly exposed to what the community expects in admins. Also, you're opinion on what makes a good admin will be consequently expressed and the community can get a better judge on what you expect of yourself as an admin. Good luck and happy editting!--v/r - T P 18:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi TParis,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

substitution

Hello TParis. This is a friendly reminder to {{subst}} the templates to prevent vandalism to them, such as here. Thanks :) -Tommy! [message] 17:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. A 6 month break will cause you to forget things sometimes. I'll remember for the future.--v/r - T P 17:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's all good TP. -Tommy! [message] 17:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

F2 Deletion

I'm not a bot.

The F2 Deletion was because it was a local description page for an image on Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Got it. I don't know why I thought you were a bot.--v/r - T P 20:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Others have made the same mistake.. mistake.. Must be because I want to get stuff DEL-ETED ;) XD Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

File deletion request

I don't know who requested deletion for "File:David Lehman photo 1996.jpg". In any case, I left you a reply on the talk page. I was going to say more until I saw that you are in the Air Force, and have managed to achieve some rank. Being X-military myself I can't stay offended for too long. Kudos for all you have achieved, including family. Do you think you'll be in for twenty? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, welcome to my talk page. Yeah, I'm definitely in for twenty. I just havent decided if all twenty years will be active duty or if I might try out the guard/reserves. We have two girls and want them to grow up near family so I am apply for recruiter duty right now so we can be closer to home (but not too close, I left for a reason). I just reenlisted for another four years, so when I am done with this enlistment I'll be at ten years.--v/r - T P 15:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for serving!

First off, thank you so much for serving our nation! It is inspiring to know that citizens such as yourself are so willing to place yourselves in harm's way, ESPECIALLY in a time of war. Honestly, I think you should add "Esquire" to the end of your name, as I feel you have certainly distinguished yourself from your peers.

Additionally, I would like to note that your Star Trek fascination is a sign of pure genious. As Dr. McCoy stated in Balance of Terror "In this galaxy there’s a mathematical probability of three million Earth-type planets. And in the universe, three million million galaxies like this. And in all that, and perhaps more...only one of each of us. " I think this statement holds especially true for honorable young men such as yourself. Thank you so much, once again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbleheadtaker (talk • contribs) 16:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: User:Farmertedmustgo

Re your message: There was an SPI case filed on this user and the accounts were blocked as a result of the check. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Fabergé Museum

On 27 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fabergé Museum, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Jake Duncan Sock

Thank you for letting us know about a possible sock of Jake Duncan, but I had to revert your edit as the case format did not come with your edit, meaning no one would have seen your case waiting there. Please refile with the links at Sockpuppet investigations and we will gladly look into it. Again, sorry. -- DQ (t) ^{Merry Chrismas}_{and a Happy New Year!} 16:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have always been confused exactly how SPI works but I guess I didn't quite understand when I asked HelloAnnyong (talk · contribs) how to add a sock to a case. I'll give it another shot.--v/r - T P 16:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I think I got it done now.--v/r - T P 16:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly done! I will be sure we look into your case. -- DQ (t) ^{Merry Chrismas}_{and a Happy New Year!} 16:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Rani Rajendra Kumari - A legendary Indian Freedom Fighter (?)

Hello, Staff Sergeant! Happy New Year!<best military voice>
I too was having a look at this 'article'. I note that Rani Rajendra Kumari was deleted in July 2009(as a Hoax! + BLP issues). There is also an existing article on her 'husband' Dewan Shatrughan Singh, however unreferenced since created on 30 May 2009! Perhaps you would like to run your eye over this too? Any TalkPage Stalkers are welcome to act too of course!
My feeling is that if this was real, then it would have been subject to a lot of editing by 'Indian' editors, but it has only been edited ≈18 times, including creation! Googling only gets 3,500 hits, which seem to be sites sourcing from Wikipedia.
Both parties mentioned also make unsourced appearances in ALL CAPS on Kalpi(one ref) and Kalijar Fort(no refs!), also Bundelkhand(lower case for once!) More hoaxing?? or POV 'freedom fighter'/'terrorist'?
ps. I am Australian but I have an Uncle, now living in Eugene, whao has been in the U.S. for the last 40-50 years! - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 04:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well when searching I stumbled over something that looked perhaps like a movie/theatre character sheet. Perhaps they are fictional characters and it may not be a hoax as much as a good faith nonnotable contribution? I really don't know, but it seemed the claims were pretty wild to be real and I couldnt find any support for them. As you said and I had seen myself, all of the hits on search engines are Wikipedia mirrors. I actually stumbled on the husband's page as well but I wasn't really sure what I should do. Honestly, I'm a rather amatuer and conservative editors. I was teetering on not db-hoaxing the wife's article because of the movie bit, but the claims seemed to wild to not be supported SOMEWHERE. I think I'll go PROD her husband's article as being unreferenced and unverifiable.v/r - T P 18:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Prince's Theatre, Manchester

On 2 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Prince's Theatre, Manchester, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the first production at the Prince's Theatre in Manchester was Shakespeare's The Tempest, on 15 October 1864? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Monmouthshire County RFC

Hi TP, yes the club is notable. I've only just started on this but county level clubs are above town teams and just below country. But all rugby union teams were amateur until ten years ago, 90% of rugby union articles are concerning amateur teams and players. The amateur status of rugby union defined it as opposed to rugby league for over a hundred years. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Tony Casella

This page wasn't spam, any more than your page was an advertisement. WuhWuzDat 04:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Your editing style violates Wikipedia deletion policy

I'd suggest you need to be aware of this: Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Your editing style plainly violates this aspect of deletion policy. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an essay, not a policy.--v/r - T P 12:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not even a guideline. Every article is still under construction, it's the nature of Wikipedia. There is never a time when we can ignore, for instance, copyright or WP:BLP violations. Having said this, TWSN, which edits on which articles are you saying are policy violations? Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And how many angels dance on the point of a pin? It is still relevant and you should observe it. I'm not getting into a discussion with yet another editor. Leave this with the editors already involved. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips

Thanks for the tips, just started digging through the European History Wikiproject, but it looks a little abandoned...maybe they went over to WikiProject Europe? I'll check it out--thanks again! ...the point is to change it (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahmed Nuh Ismail

Could you please help wikify this article: Ahmed Nuh Ismail or kindly poit out to me what needs to be corrected. Thanks so much(Omeroday (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC))

Talkback

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

And replied again. Trout me at your discretion. :) —C.Fred (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Plank hill

Hello TParis, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Plank hill to a proposed deletion tag. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hammarplast

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

JamesBWatson (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Zachlipton's talk page.
Message added 23:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you

I must say that I was completely caught off guard when I logged in today and found a shiny new barnstar on my talk page. The idea that someone has recognised and approves of the editing approach I've been applying for the past three years as a registered user, brings with it a great deal of pride. It's a symbol of appreciation and encouragement that comes at a time when my usefulness to the project has been in great self-doubt. Thank you kindly for the boost of confidence, and allowing me once again, to genuinely feel that I am indeed on the right wiki-track. Have yourself a great day TParis, all the best, and happy editing! :) -- WikHead (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Dragonfly Forest

I am not sure if I am doing this correctly, but as the Exective Director of Dragonfly Forest, I was trying to post factual information to Wikipedia to update the page about our organization. I was not trying to post anything that was considered advertising copy. I was just trying to post the facts about our organization so that post on here was correct. There is information that is listed in the profile that was incorrect, and also the page really doesn't describe what we do or who we do it for. If I cannot post this because of a conflict then please feel free to go to www.dragonflyforest.org and create your own posting based on the information you find there. Again my purpose of making these edits was to make the information about our organization as factual as possible.

Fweiner (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Expanding articles for DYK

Hi TParis, I saw the thread on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about expanding articles. I always copy the existing article into one of my sandboxes and do the expansion there, which gives me as much time as I need, without having to worry about the 5 day rule. You have to make sure you take account of any changes to the article before you replace it with the expanded version (just copied and pasted in from the sandbox), but that's no big deal. I always make sure that I leave all the categories and interwikis behind when I copy from the original, to avoid confusion. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I wish I had known that beforehand. Ohh well, it was great practice. I've done other start-class articles, but that is the first one that was even remotely close to being DYK worthy. It's a bit disappointing, but lesson learned. Thanks again!--v/r - T P 01:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Some people like the challenge of expanding an article within 5 days, but they must have more time available than I do, or take less time to get around to stuff (more likely). Right now in my sandboxes I have three articles being created and one being expanded - some of them have been there for months. Given the difficulty I have focussing, it's about the only way for me to do stuff within the DYK time limits. Anyway, better luck next time and don't be put off. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Fixed problem

Hi

Nope, no problem in the template, just in my stupid head lol ! Whats that saying, oh yeah "A computer is only as intelligent as it's programmer, and I am one dumb ass for that one"

Thanks for fixing it :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

lol no problem! Good work!--v/r - T P 05:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Name in Wiki Guides members list

Hi

Sorry about that, I was just taking a break before going though the list and checking them again.

Thanks for doing that and apologies once again Chaosdruid (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all ;) --v/r - T P 14:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
If you have an idea for improving the project, we have a strategy think tank that provides a dedicated forum for discussing it.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Help me!!

Help me in making the page " Bupenda Meitei " better in the standards of wikepedia. Kellystick (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC on the inclusion of a table comparing SI units and Binary prefixes

Notice: An RFC is being conducted here at Talk:Hard diskdrive#RFC on the use of the IEC prefixes. The debate concerns this table which includes columns comparing SI and Binary prefixes to describe storage capacity. We welcome your input

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Computing --RaptorHunter (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Awhile back we clashed slightly over your having taken exception to some links I had made on articles. We came to a peaceful resolution. However, at the time it never occurred to me to look at your user page. I was just reading an article (Jurgen Bartsch) over once again and it reminded me of you.

(You agreed with me here that an unproven claim that Bartsch (a notorious German 60s serial killer of prepubescent boys) had made should be removed from the article as without proof the accusation was potentially libelous, so you removed it in whatever official capacity you hold with Wikipedia.)

Being reminded of this, I was curious and just consulted your user page. It is indeed true that one never knows who one is writing to online unless familiar with him or her. I just wanted to take a moment to commend and thank you for your gallant service to our nation in these troubling and dangerous times. I am a veteran (Navy) and therefore all the more appreciate your service, sergeant.

I was also suspired how young you are. Your apparent intellectual interests and skills belie the myth that enlisted military personnel are dull-witted dregs in the service as a last resort, as Senator John Kerry’s most unfortunate and ill-advised remarks would imply. Godspeed and thank you once again.

By the way, my best friend, a former shipmate, is from The Dalles and his late brother worked for awhile in your hometown. I have enjoyed several wonderful visits to your home state over the years. It is most beautiful and majestic country there.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

Didn't know that. Don't worry. I'll just create it as a section in the Wario Ware Touched article.;).--User:UltraMario3000

That's fine. Most folks don't know how it all works around here when they first join. There are several programs you could jump into if you're looking for a little help getting started. There is WP:Wiki guides and WP:ADOPT and you are always welcome to come to my talk page if you have any questions. The problem with that article is that the subjects, 4.1 and 4.2, don't meet our notability guideline. Basically, you need multiple independent third party reliable sources that verify the notability of the subject. Happy editting!--v/r - T P 00:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW would the major Wario characters (Like 9-Volt, Mona, Ashley, ect.) deserve their own article? As they are notable enough for article use.--User:UltraMario3000 —Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC).

The easy way to know if something is notable is if it has been written about someone else in a major work before showing up on Wikipedia. Major works could be research topics, newspaper articles, the news, books, magazines, ect ect. If it shows up in several of these then it is likely notable. Forums, message boards, private websites, blogs, and other content that doesn't go through an editorial process generally isn't considered a reliable source and shouldn't be used to judge notability. The key here is asking the question 'Will people care about this subject in 100 years'. If the answer is yes, then all you have to do is find the right sources to support it. A process that might help you is the Articles for Creation process where your article can go through a bit of an 'incubation' process first. My strongest advice to you, though, is that you avoid creating new articles for a little while until you have a firmer grasp of the community and it's policies. You'll have an easier and less frustrating time creating new content if you spend a month or so adding content to existing articles. Happy editting!--v/r - T P 01:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok then. I'll make an article for a major Wario Ware character character as it is I believe notable.:D--User:UltraMario3000 —Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC).

Most fictional characters are generally not notable. Usually, only a character on the level of Darth Vadar (who is a widely know, often quoted, and shows up in many movies) are considered notable.--v/r - T P 01:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I see what you mean. Maybe like instead of Minor Major I should make articles on Major characters from a specific series.--UltraMario3000 (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you let me know what you have in mind as a character and I'll help you figure out if they are notable by Wikipedia standards or not?--v/r - T P 01:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well why not maybe... idk... Dimentio? I mean, he may have appeared in one game, but he is the main villain of it.--UltraMario3000 (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a tough one. I would have to say he isn't considered notable, although you may find editors who would say he was. I base this on a few google searched. I tried a regular google search, a google scholar search, a google news search, and a google books search and I couldnt find any reliable sources about Dimentio. I found a lot of Wiki pages and fan clubs, but not reliable sources. You could ask the folks at the Video games Wikiproject what they think about the idea of an article for the character. They might have more resources to find reliable sources. Infact, while on the subject, while you seem interested in video games, you might consider joining the Video games wikiproject. To join, all you have to do is add your name to this list and then look at this page to see what other folks in that project are doing. Infact, if you want to create new material, this page has a lot of requested articles. You could try tackling some of those. Happy editing!--v/r - T P 02:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Wikis Editor

The strikeout was done as an aid to a brand-new editor who very clearly doesn't yet understand how things work around here. Specifically, to reassure him or her that the Speedy call for the article s/he created had been withdrawn. I'm sorry you felt slighted by it, but excessive offence isn't warranted; your advisory post, though it was rendered wholly obsolete by the cancellation of the CSD call, remained fully legible. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C13:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

RFA question

Hello, I have answered your question at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sadads, Sadads (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I read it yesterday and read all three talk pages and my opinion didn't change.--v/r - T P 19:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that your signature was TP. I was making sure the users that had left questions but not left a position, saw that I had responded. Thank you for weighing in on my RFA! Sadads (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course, no problem. Early congrats, I can't forsee your's failing at this point.--v/r - T P 19:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Sadads (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Badoo

Thank you, TParis! That was a nice surprise. Though I wouldn't have said we'd "clashed", just had the kinds of amicable disagreements that ultimately help build stronger articles. Pity we still don't have a source about their spam, though. Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Adrian J. Hunter has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made him happy and he'd like to thank you for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether they be to someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Talkback

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
Message added 01:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bob Newton Footballer

I have previously advised yourselves that the content of the profile appertaining to me contains innacurate information and detail. I have emailed you again todday to advise this fact. Can you please provide me with full details of the person responsible for the content so that I can pass this onto my Solicitor for further action. A copy of me email is below. I consider the content posted to be libellous and wish to take further action, please do not withold any detail or information. Regards Bob Newton. Dear Sirs

I am Bob Newton who is listed in wikipedia on this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Newton_(footballer)

For a long time someone has been editing this profile and including libellous statements in respect of a conviction for a driving offence. The statement appears every now and again and although I edit this and remove the inaccurate statement it appears again at some point. I have complained about this before and pointed out that the statements being posted are not wholly accurate, relevant or provide the full details of the circumstances.

At the same time as editing the profile to include these libellous statements the person involved is also removing details regarding much of the good work I do for Charity and anything complimentary about me.

Can you please advise how I can stop this from happening?

If I need to employ a Solicitor to enforce some sort of injunction on the person editing this information can you please advise and provide details of his identity.

If you can edit the profile back to its content prior to these statements being amended it would be appreciated.

I look forward to your comments.

Many Thanks Bob Newton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobnewton (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Bob - all details of contributions can be found in the article's history. That said, Wikipedia has a policy to block users who make legal threats against the foundation or other editors until the threat is redacted or the legal situation has played out and been resolved in the court. Per WP:LIBEL, I'll have to report this to the admin noticeboard. That said, I would continue emailing the foundation if I were you to have this resolved. They are generally responsive. Their email is [info-en-q@wikipedia.org info-en-q@wikipedia.org]]. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored and includes content from published sources. good luck.--v/r - T P 15:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar (hope I chose the right one - it's my first time)

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For taking the time and effort to help resolve a particularly sticky 3RR/WQA situation, even though you didn't have to :) -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch ;)--v/r - T P 01:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, what's "V/R" stand for? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

V/r stands for "Very respectfully".--v/r - T P 01:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK - makes sense. It's rare to see that kind of formality (not at all saying that's a bad thing) in this day and age, especially on the internet. Tks again! -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Username

I suspected your interest when I saw the TParis username :) -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: FLC/C-Class

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Kirill Lokshin's talk page.
Message added 10:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edmund Ser

Hi. Could you take another look at this please and let me know whether you think it is really a biography or a subtle plug for a company. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I strongly think it's a biography article, but I admit there is quite a bit of advertising and POV prose in there. It definitely needs cleanup which is why I assessed it as C-class. The sections such as "Early Life", "Hobbies", and "Education" make me lean so strong as a biography.--v/r - T P 16:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, I suggest, if you have a moment, cutting out all the promotional stuff, checking that what's left of the references are genuine WP:RS about the person, and reassessing it as a stub. Tag it for notability and refimproveBLP if the sources do not assert notability. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I did spot checks on the sources already and the ones I checked pretty well support the material they were citing. Due to the spot checks, I've come to assume that the author did his work pretty well. I will edit for NPOV though and tag appropriately if I find problems. I dont think it will whittle down to a stub and like I said, the refs I checked supported the material so I dont think refimprove will be an issue. I think it's a very well started article imho.--v/r - T P 16:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Damn...this thing needs a ton of work.--v/r - T P 18:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Im not sure if this is how the user talk page works, but i just wanted to thank you for reviewing my article. I would really appreciate it, if you guys could help out with the improvements. I realized that the page's neutrality has been disputed. Please let me know if there is anything I can do. Thank you. Asiareports (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup, this is exactly how talk pages work ;). No problem, let's try to fix the NPOV issues so we can get it nominated for a DYK.--v/r - T P 13:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, ive been looking all over wikipedia, but cant seem to find a guide on how to increase the search engine optimization of the article. i've been googling 'edmund ser' on google. and yesterday it was 9th on the list. today its 3rd on the 2nd page. is there anything i can do to have it up as the 1st search in google? Thanks Asiareports (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Asiareports - unfortunately there isn't much (or anything) you can do. You can categorize the article and add appropriate links on related articles, but aside from that, google's index of Wikipedia and how it ranks pages is completely in google's hands.--v/r - T P 13:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: Edmund Ser

You've taken great strides to help improve Edmund Ser and seem to have given User:Asiareports good constructive criticism. In recognition of your efforts, I grant you this medal. Cheers! Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow thanks!--v/r - T P 13:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi.

I wonder if you can help me. Someone has told me on a message board that I've been banned from wikipedia. It could be either from my IP address or that my IP address is blocked in some way. I don't understand why I could be banned from wikipedia as I didn't have a wikipedia account. I have only just set up a new account under the name sunshinemags, but I have not edited any articles yet. I'm not exactly sure what my IP address is. But i do have an IP address number as this number has appeared on a friend's discussion site I posted on. There are other people who live at the same address as me who use the same IP address but they don't have wikipedia accounts and have not made any editing to wikipedia articles in the past. So this is all confusing.

What I would like to know is how do I find out if my IP address is blocked, or blocked in the past, when it was blocked, why it was blocked and who made the request for it to be blocked. I find the instructions on your help page difficult to follow. If my IP address has been blocked for some reason, then how do I make a request to unblock it. Your help will be much appreciated.

Regards, Maggie. (Sunshinemags (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC))

Hi,

I wonder if you can help me. Someone has told me that I've been banned from wikipedia. It could be from my IP address. I don't understand why I would have been banned as I don't have a wikipedia account. I have just set up a new account under the name sunshinemags but I have not edited any articles yet. I'm not quite sure what my IP address is, although I do have an IP address number I can give, as this number has appeared on a friend's discussion site I use. There are other people who live at the same address as me who use the same IP address but they don't have wikipedia accounts and have not made any editing to wikipedia articles.

I would like to know is how do I find out if my IP address has been blocked in the past, when it was blocked, why it is blocked and who made the request for it to be blocked. I find the instructions on your help page difficult to follow. If my IP address is blocked for some reason, then I want to make a request to unblock it. Your help will be much appreciated.

Regards, Maggie. (Sunshinemags (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC))

The Wikipedia Adventure

Hey, just checking in. The level 1 script has been copyedited, an Avatar is mocked-up, and images are almost ready. How's your week going? Also, I was asked to check if you can license any work you (hopefully) do with a BSD/MIT license. A bit reserved was I, but I'm convinced now that full commercial reuse and modification is the way to go, to help the tutorial-game spread. Let me know how things are looking. Ocaasi^{t | c} 02:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with the BSD license. I am a bit busy through Thursday and possibly this weekend, but next week looks fairly clear. To recap, your looking for a flash demo right? You still haven't decided on the final platform?--v/r - T P 13:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Template:Infobox_military_unit

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Kirill Lokshin's talk page.
Message added 00:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

tagged for deletion Cherylwagner.jpg

Hi there. Just wondering why this needs to be deleted? It's on another wiki page, so I assume that means that it meets the criteria for publication? Thanks. Carly Superstarcm (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's exactly what the notice says: "This file does not have information on its copyright and licensing status." See the {{Information}} template for how to properly tag an article's license. Here is an example of how to put it all together.--v/r - T P 03:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Troy Yocum

On 8 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Troy Yocum, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Troy Yocum, who is currently hiking 7,000 miles (11,000 km) across the United States, once tried to set a Guinness world record for marathon drumming? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 00:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC) 12:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Template Error - Unfortunately not

Sorry I inserted the piece encouraging the user to use citation templates by hand after using a template and omitted to insert the </nowiki>. Sorry about that, human not template error. Thanks FrankFlanagan (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Edmund Ser DYK

This one seems almost good to go, but requires a few more citations--check out T:DYK for details. Thanks! Khazar (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed copied content in your article The Faerie Path

Hi TParis! I removed a bit of plagiarism from the The Faerie Path article that you created (the text appears to have been copied from [3], [4] or some other source). I know it was long time ago since you made those edits but I thought I should let you know. Regards, Theleftorium ^(talk) 19:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Great thanks. I probably should have realized what I did back then by now. My mistake.--v/r - T P 19:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Paul Pogba for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Pogba (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Pee Jay 00:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my sloppy mistake! Cheers, MusicLover650 (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

blanked

Having a hard time seeing the G10. Looks like a dicdef. Dloh cierekim 23:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought so too when I saw it, but combined with this on the Slash article, it appears as if the editor is trying to push a new slang term to attack a group of people.--v/r - T P 23:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

We have an article on what is to me the worst perjorative in the English language, so I don't think I can make it fly as a G10. Dloh cierekim 23:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I was originally going to tag it as a hoax, because I can't find any references to support it; although they could be in a different language. But after thinking about it, I felt it was the author's attempt to create a new offensive term. Nigger seems appropriate to have an article since it's used in mainstream rap music and has a long and recorded history of derogatory use. Honestly, I'm not attached to it in any way if you feel it should be kept. I'll admit it's a very lose interpretation of attack, but I honestly feel that's what the author intended.--v/r - T P 23:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I passed the buck to whoever lloks at it next. Only because I could not get the afd to work on twinke. If it's still there by the time I've handcrafted the afd, I'll send it there. It could be deletable as an unsourced neologism or as just plain unsourced. Dloh cierekim 23:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well for the record, the twinkle features that use dialog boxes arn't working for me either on firefox or internet explorer. I know they did some updates last week, perhaps they were trying to patch some bugs and made it worse.--v/r - T P 23:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Edmund Ser

On 13 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edmund Ser, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Edmund Ser, owner of Malaysian fashion labels Edmund Ser, Spade, and SER, was a guest judge on Project Runway Malaysia? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My Signature

No harm done tp but thanks for notifying me. Mark^Dask 19:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Kontakion For You Departed

Thanks for your note. The article is a bit of a challenge because the sources aren't easily accessed on line. In addition to the GBooks snippets, there are some book reviews on GNews[5], but almost all of them seem to be behind pay walls--still it seemed evident to me that there are sufficient print sources out there, and Alan Paton is a major author, so I very much appreciate your withdrawal of the AfD. I'll also try to give some attention to adding something. Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I know someone who might be able to find some of the reviews. We'll see what I can find.--v/r - T P 21:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey stud...

...paragraphs! Maybe the chair force can weed through that stuff, but stupid sailors (that don't knock off at 1700 or have two golf courses per base) need some division of thoughts! r/ TCO (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Come on, give me a break. I cut my answer to your WoW question down to two lines! The thing is, I can go all day about some obscure opinion, but I couldn't write like that in an article if my life depended on it.--v/r - T P 22:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If you can not organize your thoughts...just put arbitrary breaks in every five sentences.TCO (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ohh my bad. I thought you were making a comment on the length, not the structure. I can organize paragraphs.--v/r - T P 23:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Kill a commie for Christ.TCO (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lee bivens

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Lee bivens, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Borden Dairy & Borden (Company)

Hi - I just finished creating a new page on Wiki for "Borden Dairy" with references & citations & was hoping to redirect "Borden (Company)" to it, but you beat me to the punch & did the opposite by redirecting the page I developed to "Borden (Company)".

I do not want to risk being banded from editing as I was given a final warning yesterday when I tried making updates to validate "Borden (Company)" - so can you provide me some recommendations on what I can do?

thank you in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajkarim (talk • contribs) 15:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the first thing I would recommend is not redirecting Borden (Company) to Borden Dairy as Borden (Company) is a well sourced article and has been rated B-class by the community. A lot of the material you've added to Borden Dairy already exists in Borden (Company) and we should not have two articles on the same company. What I would strongly recommend you do is discuss your changes on the Borden (Company) talk page with your references and suggest other editors help your include the information or discuss with you why it's not encyclopedic. Good luck!--v/r - T P 15:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks - will do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajkarim (talk • contribs) 15:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Evening

My apologies for a late question on your RfA. I'll look forward to your answer in case you are free. In case you are not, do not worry about answering the query as you already have quite competently answered a considerable many. Best wishes for a successful RfA. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's no problem. I was able to give it a very straightforward answer that I hope is acceptable to you.--v/r - T P 15:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

I know this comes before the bureaucrat closes. But I wouldn't have the time later on to drop in. My congratulations again for being our newest admin. Copy the scripts on any admin's or my page and you'll be on the way. Drop in for any assistance in the future. Best. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 18:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your trust and the note.--v/r - T P 18:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The fat lady has sung. Congrats! T. Canens (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! If you need any advice, feel free to ask. You should have a look at admin js pages for some good scripts. Ged UK 20:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, who are you calling fat? Well, as you have seen, the members of the English Wikipedia project came to a consensus to allow you access to the administrator maintenance toolkit; congratulations! Now, we have a backlog on aisle 4, so get cracking!! . -- Avi (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Very well done, I had hopes you'd get it. Welcome to the masochist brigade! When you get your first prolific vengeful sockpuppet vandal stalker then you'll be fully initiated. Also, just a note, I spent most of my WoW time as a tank (a gnome warrior in my case, don't hate). -- Atama頭 20:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like 28bytes and Jimp didn't have to be on newbie admin coffee duty for very long! Well done, a good result! Pedro : Chat 20:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Very thankful (and humbled) for ya'all's trust. I think I should run out to Walmart and buy me a brand spankin' new mop with a chrome handle. Maybe I should also pick up some urinal cakes?--v/r - T P 20:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The cakes are in closet #4, shelf E-14-a-2. However, BYOM is not a bad idea

-- Avi (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't eat the pink cakes, they'll give you a stomach ache. The green ones aren't so bad. -- Atama頭 21:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Except they'll make your skin turn green ... maybe that's why everyone mistakes Atama for an alien. Anyway, congrats TParis, and please don't get into trouble on your first day! /ƒETCH COMMS / 23:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh thanks! I'm trying not to, although I did experiment on a few obvious CSD articles just so I was aware what was what. I'm going to look into some promotional usernames editing for promotional purposes later on to make sure I understand the blocking tool. I dont want to click something and have it to something I dont expect it to do. For now I am working on solving the crisis of what conditions I would be willing to be recalled for. Hope you dont mind, but I've respected many of you for quite a long time and I've used your names as editors I'd consider a recall for.--v/r - T P 23:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RFA. –BuickCentury Driver 00:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Heartiest congrats!

I hope you didn't mind me recusing, I sincerely hoped you would pass and was absolutely sure you would. Welcome to the club of the nastiest and wikedest Wikipedians! When you get home from work and out of your nice office uniform, you'll need to don your oldest set of fatigues to do the mopping up here, or you can wear this T-shirt ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I dont mind at all, you probably did the appropriate thing. I apologize for singling you out and creating a COI for you. It wasn't my intention to do that to you and I didn't realize what I had done until you made a comment. I really have earned a strong respect for you. Oldest fatigues? Well I guess I can use the old BDUs, we dont wear those anymore.--v/r - T P 02:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Congrats from me as well! —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:35pm • 10:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Pablo X

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Santorum_.28neologism.29--Truth Mom 14:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Either of you care to explain the relevance of the above link? Keen as I am to avoid drama, I am getting more than a little fucked off here. pablo 19:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what it means. I assume Truth Mom was trying to show me that she sent Jimbo Wales an email; which you've already pointed out to me on your talk page.--v/r - T P 19:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Either that or she is comparing me to a mixture of shit and lube. Or both. Perhaps we'll never know. pablo 20:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Lol. Well I'm going to WP:AGF here that perhaps she was just trying to link to Mr. Wales page and just happened to grab a link to that particular topic. She seems fairly inexperienced with the MediaWiki software. For the record, she didnt use a section header here on my talk page. I created the section header to split the discussion off from two other discussions.--v/r - T P 21:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see that now. Perhaps you're right, it just seemed a bit odd. pablo 21:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Skin Inc. magazine

Why did you delete the Skin Inc. magazine page? There was absolutely nothing promotional in the content of the page. It was strictly factual. Allured9 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The article appeared to be for promotional purposed only. The 'factual information' was actually descriptive of the kind of readers who would enjoy it as well as an expo held by the magazine. If you would like, I would be happy to userfy the article so you can improve on it.--v/r - T P 18:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please userfy and I will keep working on it. Allured9 (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

All done, I've placed it at User:Allured9/Skin_Inc._magazine. Good luck, and let me know if you need someone to review it; I'd be happy to.--v/r - T P 18:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! If you don't mind, I'd like to get a Wiki moderator's opinion on the following-I've read a few times that the best way to get an article on Wikipedia is to create a stub with only 1-2 sentences so that others can fill in information. I think that's a good approach when it comes to bias/neutrality, but it doesn't address the issue of notability. What is your opinion? Allured9 (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, it can go both ways. It honestly depends on the editor who stumbles on the article. Keep in mind that the following doesn't apply to your article and I'll explain why in a moment. On the one hand, you have folks who create stubs. Someone else with a little more interest and a little more information can usually come along and improve. They'll see the article and have an "Ohh yeah, I know this stuff." moment. On the other side of it, you'll see folks that will review articles and recognize one of Wikipedia's core principals of WP:V which is pretty clear that the priority is verifiability before truth. Both sides have the right idea and generally work hand in hand. The reason it doesn't apply to your article is because we have criteria that covers companies, including magazines, that allows for a quick deletion. These policies are because of the over abundance of articles that get created every day by folks trying to use Wikipedia to advertise or who feel that a hole in the wall Mexican restaurant down the street from their office has great enchiladas and deserves an article so everyone knows. So it really depends on the topic of the article you create, how notable it really is, and a little bit of luck that the right editor finds it. Good luck!--v/r - T P 18:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Boardman Center Middle School

Hi just a courtesy note to explain why I restored this page. You deleted the page (entirely properly) whilst I was in the process of merging and redirecting. I have now restored and redirected the page to preserve the history for GFDL purposes. TerriersFan (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. I think I'll stop by and see where you redirected it so I know where to redirect a middle school to next time I stumble on one. Thank you for letting me know.--v/r - T P 23:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The established consensus is that high schools are notable but, except where they are Blue Ribbon Schools (or equivalent in other countries), middle and elementary schools are generally not-notable. In the US the normal practice is to merge such schools into the school district. Other countries don't have school districts so we merge to the lowest locality article. In the case of this school, the district article has yet to be written so I merged it to the settlement. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Saw that. Thanks for teaching me! I'll be sure to do this in the future.--v/r - T P 23:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If in doubt with schools, you can always check out WP:WPSCH and WP:WPSCH/AG which also have links to other policies, guidelines, essays, and precedents. School articles are mostly created by very inexperienced WP:SPA who often don't come back to see if their article is still there or to see if there are messages on their talk pages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yay! My first talk page stalker!--v/r - T P 13:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natami

It might be a good idea to reconsider the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natami given print sources such as this. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I did review the sources carefully. The news source given is not exactly independant of the subject. What I mean to say is, it falls within the same field. Therefore, Natami would have more newsworthy significance and notability to the source than it would in a news source not associated with the field. I could find noone whose rationale to keep offered sources that were independent, signifiant, and not blog or forums.--v/r - T P 23:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

In any event, thanks. Fewer admins than should be the case in AfDs close based on policy, as opposed to nose counts. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 23:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

We require reliable sources which are independently published from the subject of an article, which this one is. It does not matter if the magazine is geared towards Amiga users. I seriously doubt you are going to see coverage of an Amiga topic in a magazine such as MacUser which caters to Apple users. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The source provided is independent enough to cite information from, but is too close to the subject to establish notability. We're not talking about a Computer Magazine here with a broad subject matter to single out the subject and report on. We're talking about a very specialized source specifically talking about hardware associated with the subject of the magazine. The source's sight is too specific to establish notability. "I seriously doubt you are going to see coverage of an Amiga topic in a magazine such as MacUser." That is exactly the point.--v/r - T P 23:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

So you are agreeing that the source is reliable? If that's the case, closing as delete really isn't the optimal solution regardless of notability since the material could still be merged into another article. That said, I'm not convinced that this magazine does not help establish notability. Again, we are talking about a published magazine, that link just happens to be a web reprint. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Assume good faith on the part of the closing admin, and if there are strong grounds for contesting the closing decision, consider taking it to WP:DRV. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea

[6] - You should probably get in touch with User:ProcseeBot's operator about adding something to the bot's block logs, though. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I left a message on Slakr's talk page.--v/r - T P 01:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul Cuffee (missionary)

Hmmm... I'd forgotten about that article. I'd like to enlist your help in resolving the copyright issue.

Here's the background... There is an article on Paul Cuffee that I had on my watchlist. ~~Somebody complained somewhere on a Wikipedia talk page (I forget exactly where)~~

On March 9, 2011, User:Paul Cuffe complained about the confusion between the two Paul Cuffee's (here). In all probability, this user is also the author of this website.

Note that his website explicitly raises the issue that Wikipedia confuses the two Paul Cuffee's:

There seem to be have been two men named “Paul Cuffee” who were contemporaries. One (the Paul Cuffee of the Wikipedia article “Paul Cuffee”) was a Quaker merchant, philanthropist, and abolitionist instrumental in the founding of Sierra Leone. He lived from 1759 to 1817. By the way, the Wikipedia article on that Paul Cuffee errs; it states inaccurately that he is the Paul Cuffee (1757-1812) who is on the Episcopal Church’s Calendar of Saints. So I attempt to make clear the identity and accomplishments of the Reverend Paul Cuffee. Quakers don’t have reverends.

I had never heard of the second Paul Cuffee before that person raised the issued. I tried to address the issue by creating Paul Cuffee (missionary). I do remember that there was darn little information about this Paul Cuffee and that I was trying to take the facts and make them into a non-copyright infringing article but, with that little information, it was hard to change the expression of the facts much. That said, I'm not disputing that there probably is copyright infringement. I can't really comment as to how much since the article has been deleted. Your comment on the Autopatrolled request page indicates that there was quite a bit of infringement.

Here's how I'd like to ask you to help. There is a desire to have an article on the second Paul Cuffee. Since he has a feast day in the Church of Scotland, he is notable and encyclopedic. We might be able to get the author of the website to make his text free under Wikipedia's CC/SSA license. After all, it was his expressed desire to have Wikipedia make the distinction. If he were to create the article and/or provide its text instead of me doing it, then the copyright problem goes away.

So here is what I propose... please restore the deleted article to my userspace. I will try to contact the author of the website to see if he is willing to put his text under CC/SSA. If not, I will try to rewrite the text so that it doesn't infringe on copyright.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-Richard - it's much easier than that. Let's take the sources I mentioned on the request for permissions page and write the article from scratch in our own words. Tomorrow (Monday), I'll create an article in your userspace and start a few sentences. We can collaborate on this together and come up with a great article within policy for Cuffee. Perhaps if we can reach 1500 characters, we can put it up for DYK for the feast day. What day is that?--v/r - T P 14:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The Feast Day is March 4th which is a long ways away (i.e. creating the article now would disqualify it from DYK on March 4, 2012). I could go either way (recreating it in the next few days vs. waiting until March 2012 to recreate it). I appreciate your willingness to collaborate in creating a non-infringing article although I think it may be worthwile to contact User:Paul Cuffe to ask for help by providing sources to ground the article text with citations. I think he would be glad to assist. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

We can certainly draft it in userspace and then decide the appropriate time to introduce the article. DYK's 5-day rule starts when the article enters mainspace. I think, though, that there are special rules for articles that would benefit from being displayed on a specific day. I'll look into this special holding area.--v/r - T P 14:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Started the Paper Swan Studios page. Currently editing and will provide more information later.

Thank you for your help with making sure that Paper Swan Studios has the correct information and formatting. Currently the process is to make sure the formatting is correct and has a "skeleton" that will be filled in later. It will be a great resource for musicians, songwriters and producers that are looking for information on a variety of singer-songwriters, bands, film/tv placements, etc.

Your help is greatly appreciated as the process of adding a page to wikipedia is new.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossdasher (talk • contribs) 16:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There is still a huge issue with notability of the studio. You need to read WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG to insure the article meets those criteria for inclusion. You'll also need to read WP:N and WP:RS and add multiple significant and independent reliable sources to the article to establish its notability. If you are affiliated with the studio at all, please keep in mind you have a conflict of interest and what may seem notable to you may not be to an international audience.--v/r - T P 16:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I originally tagged this for a speedy delete because the claims of artists the studio had produced kept changing - I would think they would whether or not they had actually worked with Adele, Mariah McManus, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, ZZ Top, and Metallica, as they once claimed. Another point for me to go the speedy route is the original references provided made no mention of the studio. I'm putting it up for a speedy again, as I don't think it's notable - and I doubt the veracity of the claims provided. I would also have no problem taking this to AfD, if ncessary. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps with the quick changes, perhaps this is a db-hoax? I can't see db-a7 because of the assertion, but I could see db-hoax if the assertion keeps changing.--v/r - T P 16:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. for your concern and for making sure everything is valid. zztop/Red hot/adele have not worked at paper swan studios. Mariah McManus, Joy Williams of the Civil Wars, Trent Dabbs, Amy Stroup, Tyrone Wells, Andrew Belle etc have worked at paper swan studios with Thomas Doeve. Originally the zztop/red hot/adele etc were merely for formatting sake and as you can see this was started this morning and is still being revised. This is a new process so I appreciate your patience. Currently Paper Swan (Thomas Doeve) has had music used over 30 times in film/television and is very notable to musicians, artists, producers, songwriters, television music supervisors, fans of television shows and film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossdasher (talk • contribs) 17:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Moments like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j_nzXfeVHA Are very relevant to millions of people world wide and thus a wiki page for paper swan studios should be operational. Thank you for helping me as I believe this page will be a great informational resource for many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossdasher (talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Also guys sorry didn't realize I wasn't supposed to remove the _speedy_ notifications. Can you do that for me? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossdasher (talk • contribs) 17:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

STE

I'm sorry if i reply you so fast, but why do you accuse me for Advertising? I'm sorry if i'm impolite but i'm just asking why. I wanted to contest the deletion of STE but the article got deleted and the talk page too by another admin because it belongs to an unexistent article. I wasn't advertising. I just wanna create an article. So please, give me a reply telling me why... And if you don't want to reply, you don't need to. - Thanks for any reply, Artimonier (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC).

I understand your concerns, but your article really was advertising. Infact, on the talk page you specifically said that people were looking for information on Wikidot and that is why you created the article. Wikipedia is not a web host, a place to advertise your product, or indiscriminate source of information. It is an encyclopedia. If you are affiliated with the software, then you have a conflict of interest and you may not even realize how promotional the article truely was. I strongly recommend that you try the articles for creation process instead. Good luck.--v/r - T P 16:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Adminship

Congratulations! GaneshBhakt (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, can you please check and edit if necessary: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-06-20/News_and_notes. Tony (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

All done, thanks!--v/r - T P 12:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Quote taken out of context

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Talk:Harris & Harris Group#Removed db-corp.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JamesBWatson (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Are You Watching This?!

Greetings TParis,

Can I get more info on why the article on Are You Watching This?! was flagged? I read the article creation guidelines thoroughly, didn't make any statements without reference, and didn't include any opinion-based statements about the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mphil14 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The article was written like a press release. It was highly promotional and advertising. If you have a conflict of interest, you may have trouble seeing this in a neutral way. From an uninvolved editor's perspective, the sole purpose of the article was to advertise.--v/r - T P 14:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Morning TParis,

I am very respectful of the daily battle editors wage against self-promotion on Wikipedia, but I having trouble finding anything in there that wasn't neutral. Everything was fact-based, there was no "Best in Class!" or "Revolutionary!" language, and every statement referenced reputable articles from sources like ABC News and NPR. I looked at entries for over a dozen similar companies, and I aimed to err on the site of caution.

Can you please take another look and let me know what didn't come across as neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mphil14 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'd be happy to move this into your userspace if you wish to improve on it. Language such as "Using patent-pending technology", "The focus for the company is the Living Room", as well as the sports covered sections. When writing articles about companies, write about what the company is and not what it does. For example, if I were to rewrite that article, I would say "Are you watching this?", founded in 2007, is a sports organization that alerts subscribers when a significant event occurs during a sporting broadcast." I would stick with the subscribers, ratings, reviews, business model, and income. Do you want me to userfy it?--v/r - T P 15:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That'd be great, TParis. Thanks much. I'll give it another a go, and clean it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mphil14 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, it's been moved to User:Mphil14/Are_You_Watching_This?!.--v/r - T P 18:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Island Monkey's talk page.
Message added 17:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 17:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What Is "v/r", That Is Part Of Your Signature

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tristar_and_Red_Sector_Incorporated_(3rd_nomination)

I noticed that you type "v/r" just before you sign, so this isn't part of your signature. I was wondering what it means.Curb Chain (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"v/r" means Very Respectfully. It lets other editors know that while I may disagree with them, or whatever my comments were, I mean it respectfully and honestly with no slight intended. It is part of my signature though, so it automatically gets added.--v/r - T P 23:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well it might confuse people because when hovering over a signature, the cursor turns into a hand. That is why it was confusing.Curb Chain (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Douglas A. Phillips' wiki page

Hi TParis,

I am contacting you as I saw that you deleted the Douglas A. Phillips' wiki page I created earlier today. I am afraid I don't really understand the reason why you deleted it as Douglas A. Phillips is Managing Partner of WeiserMazars LLP and had plenty of coverage in the press when the merger between Weiser and Mazars happened... Maybe is it because he's mentioned in articles by Accounting Today & Going Concern as Doug Phillips instead of Douglas A. Phillips, his full name? I am just trying to understand in order to avoid the mistakes I made in the future.

Thanks in advance for your answer,

Syllae Syllae (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I am on my phone right now but it was likily because the subject had no claim of significance or importance and the sources were minor mentions. if youd like me to take a more indepth review then I can when i return to a computer.--v/r - T P 16:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, Yes, I would like you to make a more indepth review because with all due respect, I have to disagree with the sources being minor mentions... If you check the article from Going Concern (http://goingconcern.com/2010/04/weisers-doug-phillips-combination-with-mazars-was-the-next-logical-step/) you will see that Doug Phillips' name is included in the title and that he's basically interviewed in the article. He is also mentioned several times in the Accounting today article: (http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/Mazars-Weiser-Chiefs-See-International-Growth-54178-1.html). He's also a member of several renowned associations. If I created the page as Doug Phillips instead of Douglas A. Phillips, would it be still on? As there are several Doug Phillips already existing on wikipedia, should I add "(businessman)" or something else next to "Doug Phillips" ?

Thanks in advance,

Syllae (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed the two sources you've provided and I would suggest that you read WP:PRIMARY. Interviews are considered primary sources and are not used to determine notability. Aside from that, the interviews are about the companies, not the subjects. There is no significant content about the subject, Douglas Phillips, to have an article.--v/r - T P 17:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

GINGER GONZAGA PAGE DELETED

Why was this deleted? Not only has she been in several TV shows, and currently on The Morning after on HULU every morning, but she also just filmed TED the SETH MACFARLANE movie. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2668086/ I don't understand why you would delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.192.194 (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ginger_Gonzaga and the consensus was to delete.--v/r - T P 17:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

So because angry people got upset with something she said on a show, you delete it? How about doing a little research first? She's in the new SETH MACFRALANE MOVIE. She's a RECURRING CHARACTER on the MOST SUCCESSFUL WEBISODE OF ALL TIME (In Gayle We Trust)and she's on the FRONT PAGE OF HULU everyday. Is there really NO research done at all? Anyone can just delete anything?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2668086/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.192.194 (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on WP:CONSENSUS not WP:ILIKEIT. I suggest you read both.--v/r - T P 18:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I read both. But I suggest whoever deleted it do the same, because there was absolutely NO research done at all. In a matter of TWO minutes you can find several links and sites that show all of what I stated before. Maybe you should delete Seth Macfarlane's page too? Or can you not find anything about Family Guy on the internet? This is the most ridiculous thing ever and all of her fans are very upset. Wikipedia is apparently a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.192.194 (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoever deleted a page about someone in so many things on TV/Movie/Internet is the reason why Wikipedia is a joke. Your "Admins" obviously don't do ANY research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.161.202 (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I also can copy and post links of people bragging that they deleted her page yesterday, if you'd like. PLEASE DO RESEARCH BEFORE YOU DELETE SOMETHING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.192.194 (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to restore that page. There was no bad faith in the deletion discussion and whatever off-wiki discussion that has happened has no merit here. That said, if you still disagree with the deletion, you can open a discussion at deletion review.--v/r - T P 21:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

TradeHill

This was my first real contribution to wikipedia. If you have any input as to why the tradehill article seemed too self promotional, I would appreciate the the advice. Much of the information was taken from the company's website as it is fairly new, however I was not trying to advocate for their services over any other, I simply wanted to represent and help fill out an topic that is getting increasing attention and which lacks wiki entries to full explain the issue and the actors in a way that laypeople will understand. Thanks for your input, I hope to improve the entry.ThereNHere (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Chances are, and I haven't reviewed it yet, that if you have taken the information directly from their website than it is 1) Copyrighted, and 2) Written in a promotional manner. Companies websites are meant to advertise the company. They are not written neutrally. Hence, if you copy it, you've copied the company's advertisement and placed it on Wikipedia.--v/r - T P 18:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your unblock decline here

You stated that they were unaware of the concept of conflict of interest; however, the user specifically stated that they would not rely on self-published materials to verify the information. The user also stated that they would work to remain as neutral as they could. Suggestions were made on the talk page that all of this user's pages start as userspace drafts. You also pointed out that the user desired to create the articles because other things exist, I don't believe you understood the full context of the user's remarks. They intended more to say that the articles about Shaftesbury Films would be written in a similar style and neutrality to those of Pinewood Studios. I do agree with the procedural decline part because the questions asked by BWilkins were not answered; however, I believe the user should be unblocked as soon as the questions are answered. Copying this message to the talk page of the article as well Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't that the user is using conflict of interest (primary) sources, the issue is that the user has a conflict of interest. While not prohibited, it is strongly discouraged in WP:COI that users create or edit pages they are affiliated with. It actually suggests discussing pages on the article talk page or developing userspace drafts. As the user did not acknowledge the user space draft idea, I felt he didn't read or comprehend it. Also, while not in the WP:COI policy, the community generally expects editors with a COI to use the WP:AFC process. I can acknowledge after rereading it that perhaps I took the other stuff exists out of context, but that was more icing on the cake than anything else. The user's unblock request does not acknowledge any of the concerns other than the username change and the use of primary sources. That said, I have no prejudice against another administrator reversing my call.--v/r - T P 19:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that, and I thought of posting a link to WP:AFC; however, I am not completely sure on the workings of Articles for creation. Shouldn't the block have been left unreviewed until the user had a chance to respond or acknowledge? If you understand the process, maybe you could post some information to the user's page and see what he/she replies with. Is it ok if I copy your response to the talk page?

I still don't think your call should be reversed until the user responds to the suggestions on the page. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles for creation is, in my honest opinion, a slightly broken process. Articles are supposed to mature and be developed in AFC and they are not. I understand there is often a backlog, but many reviewers will simply decline because of lack of sources on a clearly notable topic. I even saw a decline on an article because the submitter had a COI; which is the point of using AFC. As far as unreviewed, the editor can post another unblock request that addresses the concerns. There isn't a rule that says "if your unblock request has been denied in the last X hours, you cannot submit another". I dont mind you copying my reply, but let's hold the conversation in one place from now on? If you'd like it to be on the user's talk page, that's fine. You can use the "talkback" template to point to other pages besides your own and I'll respond there.--v/r - T P 20:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, I normally do keep it in one place. In this situation I decided to make the comment on your page and later decided that other users might take interest. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Natami

TParis, in no way did I ever make an implied threat. While I may be a little blunt and abrasive at times (or maybe I'm just an asshole), because you had just passed your RFA, I tried to treat the situation with kid gloves.

I was also attempting to assume good faith in that you simply misremembered the facts I outlined above when you made this statement here. It is easy to forget a few details here or there and not everyone maintains detailed notes for this sort of stuff (I do, for a number of reasons, although I didn't always).

As far as honest advice goes, this is a two-way street and I gave you my opinion as well. If you choose to ignore and discount it, so be it, but I'd suggest you be much more careful in the future and get your facts correct before you make the sort of statement you made above. Such statements can and do cause problems for other editors. Who knows, it may just be that you've not been around long enough yet to have witnessed people blocked or punished in some way because someone else didn't have their facts together. (If you do decide you want to continue this discussion, perhaps we should take this elsewhere.) --Tothwolf (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Copied from Master of Puppets talk page--v/r - T P 18:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've had a very hard time reading you. The internet makes reading a person's language hard because the body language and voice inflections arn't there. If you did not mean your email as a threat, perhaps an aggressive word, then you may need to rethink how you present that sort of an email because that is how I had taken it. Between the email you sent me, the discussion on M.O.P.'s talk page, and the language you used with Rilak such as "your tactics of suggestion" and several times you've accused people of making "false statements" (for example on here). I've spoken with you several times during this entire issue and at times you've seemed well mannered and cordial and at other times you've seemed spiteful and angry. I honestly don't know how to take you and this above reply is a perfect example. In your previous response to me, you appeared vengeful and in this response you seem honest. The bottom line is that I took your email to be a threat and then I let it go. If that was not your intention, please phrase your emails to me clearer. And I'd appreciate it if when you choose to email "a number of other administrators", that you please just take it to DRV after speaking to me. Plenty of other administrators and editors there would be happy to weigh in.--v/r - T P 18:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That's understandable, I'm not exactly an easy person to read. As far as the AN/I goes, I stand by what I said. That editor was attempting to game AN/I and use something unrelated to the matter at hand to bully me, and it failed (the good thing that came out of it is it was the final push I needed to get off my butt and fully document the mess they had tried to use to attack and discredit me). I do take issue with some of Rilak's behaviour and attempts to mislead others to sway discussion, but that doesn't have anything to do with my interactions with you or any other editors.

"I've spoken with you several times during this entire issue and at times you've seemed well mannered and cordial and at other times you've seemed spiteful and angry." Perhaps that is because while I'm generally good natured, if I see someone attempting to game the system or making false or misleading statements (or outright lying), I tend to get very blunt and call someone on it. As I said on M.O.P.'s talk page, while at this point I don't really think it would be worthwhile to get into an "X did this because of Y" sort of discussion over some of the stuff in the Natami AfDs, there were individuals (more than one) there who intentionally made false or misleading statements for various reasons.

Something I probably wasn't clear about when I emailed you is there were other editors who were actually more likely to DRV the close than I was. At the time I had emailed you, I hadn't yet decided if I was going to take the close to DRV. It was only after your reply, and the feedback I got from others that I had decided to take it to DRV, but of course I never got the chance since you relisted it before I could do so :) --Tothwolf (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I didn't relist to avoid DRV, I honestly think the original AfD would've stood much better at DRV than the current one is going. I relisted because I greatly respect two of the administrators and felt that I must have given off a perception that wasn't accurate as perceptions can often times appear to be the truth. As far as this issue goes, I'm going to write this off between us as a lot of misunderstanding or miscommunication and just AGF at this point. I've been told that I tend to make things more than they are and so perhaps from my perspective it's best just to let it go as well. If we do converge in the future, I would like to offer parting advice when dealing with me is just to try to make yourself appear calm, even if you already are. I don't really get upset about things, but I do get defensive with I think folks are being aggressive with me.--v/r - T P 19:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osulrc-1

From later discussion on his talk page, IP 76.103.207.254 is new editor User:Gregrank who had made his request at the AFd while not logged in. I would ask that with this new information, a userfication to User:Gregrank/Osulrc-1 might be considered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, I took care of it.--v/r - T P 21:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

blocking criterion

I saw the article on Foreign Exchange F.C CSD, and deleted it for speedy A7. I was then proceeding to the user page of the editor, User:Falc, to try to explain to him why his request to avoid deletion was invalid and the article was hopelessly unsuitable, and I saw you had blocked him indefinitely for removing the speedy notice from the article. I do not consider this a blockable offense, let alone a reason for an indefinite block with account creation disabled, for an editor's first good faith attempt at keeping an article/ True, they editor removed the notice several times. People do not necessarily actually read the warning notices--they look too much like the typical bureaucratic verbiage, not as helpful advice. It is not actually all that disruptive, for the bot always picks it up and the article gets deleted anyway. New editors do not understand things, and they need to be encouraged. Here was someone who mistakenly believed that his club was appropriate for an article, and it presents an opportunity for us to explain to the person the purpose of Wikipedia, with the hope that he will perhaps come to contribute usefully in the future. But here you have probably alienated him forever. Most admins I think would perhaps have blocked him if he had continually recreated the article after deletion, but he did not do that (myself, I rarely block in such a case unless the article is truly disruptive--I just protect against re-creation, which usually communicates the message very clearly, without the need to say anything unpleasant.

You are after all a new administrator and I would normally say that you should have the chance to correct your own errors, but in this case I am simply unblocking and apologizing to the user of behalf of Wikipedia, because I consider this an unambiguous error, and also consider the matter urgent , to prevent us from losing this editor. I do not think this needs to go to AN/I, but of course you are welcome to take it there.

I must place this message on-wiki instead of informing you privately, because I think it's of course necessary to leave a visible record when onw reverta a fellow admin, which not something one does lightly. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't blocked User:Falc. I did block User:Fefc. I didn't block him for removing the speedies, I blocked him because his username is an ancronym for Foreign Exchange F.C, a group he was creating an article for. That's an SPA account used for spam only where the username represents a group. That's why I blocked. It was in response to a WP:UAA report and had nothing to do with the removal of the speedy templates. I even used the block template for usernames. Not sure why you thought it was over the speedy template removals.--v/r - T P 03:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

what DGG was trying to say is: discretion is the better part of valor. policy enforcement is a poor excuse. you can be a martinet if you will, better to be a librarian counselor.Slowking4 (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

~~That didn't make sense.~~Google is my friend I'm very literal and by the book. I lack the talent to interpret ambiguous rules or opinions. The policy is clear, I've followed it. There is no reason for DGG to get upset here. Especially on an user that is clearly only here to advertise their company. I'm also concerned that DGG's unblock says "excessively severe block for removing a deletion notice" when the rationale for the block was not due to the speedy deletion templates. At the very least, DGG should change that rationale to reflect my actions appropriately. If he feels it's too severe for a SPA account for spamming, that's fine but he needs to use that as the unblock rationale. Regardless, I know DGG is dealing with personal matters and I'm not going to pursue this until he is ready.--v/r - T P 22:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, the editor could have been soft-blocked to force them to change their username, since "FEFC" matches the initials of the club and are a violation of WP:CORPNAME. I don't totally agree that the editor is here to promote the club... They are probably editing with a COI, and the article they created was eligible for speedy deletion and was subsequently deleted, and they did edit a bit disruptively by inappropriately removing the tag even after repeated warnings (though I assume that wasn't willfully malicious). But the article they created wouldn't be something I'd delete as G11, and I don't know that I would have hardblocked them. Usually in a situation like this, I'll do 3 things... Delete the article, inform the editor about our COI guideline (and probably lead them to the handy WP:PSCOI guide) and then finally ask them to change their username (either at WP:CHUS or by just creating a new account). Just some advice from me. Oh, another piece of advice... In my experience, DGG is right at least 95% of the time, so at the very least consider anything he suggests. -- Atama頭 18:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Atama that the most critical part is that if the user was blocked it should have been a soft block, not a hard block, to permit the user to do what they are told to do, which is to select another user name. A hard block prevents them from following the very instructions we give them! In the case of a new editor we should AGF and hope that they write a better article. Certainly an editor who writes a promotional article might write another, or even reinsert the same material--in such cases a hard block can be appropriate & I have often given such in the circumstances. FWIW, I hope my re-statements of existing policy are right 95% of the time, but my opinions about interpretation or my advice are meant as opinions and advice, and with respect to them, I doubt I reach so high a standard. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll wait to reply on your talk page as you've said you'll give a more in-depth discussion tomorrow. I dont disagree, necessarily, but I do have a concern. I just dont want to keep this discussion split.--v/r - T P 22:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Pconsulting

Hey there Mr. TP! Just letting you know that I'm unblocking Pconsulting. Your initial block was totally justified, both by the nature of their edits and their violation of WP:CORPNAME. However, they have requested a new username (twice now, actually) and have looked over our policy pages and sworn to try to avoid violating COI from now on (they'll also ask someone else to create a web site on their company, they don't plan to do so directly). I wanted to drop you a note so that you were aware that I was doing this. Thanks! -- Atama頭 18:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thats cool with me, I completely trust your judgement!--v/r - T P 19:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Good job!

		The Original Barnstar
		I see you doing a lot of good work over at WP:UAA, and I wanted to tell you that you are doing a good job! :) Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch.--v/r - T P 20:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

New e-mail

Hello, TParis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Gorlack36 and rollback

Hi TParis. I just wanted to bring this issue to your attention. A couple of days back you granted rollback rights to Gorlack36 (talk · contribs). However, I see a couple of issues with this. The user is very new and still learning their way around. It is important that rollbackers, who are often the users who first have contact with newbies due to their work in RCP and Huggle, are well versed in Wikipedia policy and have a good amount of experience editing and dealing with troublesome users. In addition, I have concerns that they do not understand the proper use of rollback as an anti-vandalism tool, to be used almost solely for reverting obvious vandalism, or that they have enough knowledge to judge what is vandalism or not. Please see the user's talk page for some examples. I'm not going to take any action myself, but I would ask that you review your decision in light of all of this. Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I find it insulting then that I can be denied the tool for a mostly dead temperament issue and then this privilege can be granted to someone with far less experience. When I possessed rollback my only incident involving the tool was wholly the fault of the independence POV pusher. Instead of being harsher on the troublesome anon the community pays lip service to a dangerously extreme point of view. So in light of this the only two fair courses of action are to revoke Gorlack's flag and wait another 500 edits or so and see the results, or to re-grant the flag to me. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 16:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As TParis says below these are two entirely different issues. Also, blaming the "POV pusher" for your own actions is riduculous. It is wholly your own fault that you misused rollback, if you'd read WP:ROLLBACK you'd know that NPOV != VAND. Please take the time to learn the relevant policies if you want to get rollback. Also, we don't grant rollback based on the number of edits a user has made. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And if the pusher, who was clearly editing against policy and rigid consensus, didn't come, I wouldn't have to revert him. In effect his edits were nothing more than vandalism. Look how many times in November I rejected (with reviewer) edits when I could have rollbacked them. I proved myself with the tool in November, and I am punished for in essence defending the encyclopaedia and upholding policy? Actually every single user who vetted for the IP was being ridiculous. Lastly, I ask you how an admin is not slapped for making similar reverts with rollback/HG.

My suggestion regarding number of edits was to allow Gorlack to re-prove himself before returning to the tool in earnest again. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 16:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Saying that it's his fault that you abused rollback is nonsense. You need to admit that it was an incorrect use of rollback, rather than blaming everyone other than yourself. The vandalism policy makes quite clear that his edits were not vandalism, please learn the policy. You're not being punished, your work reviewing edits is appreciated. The reason he hasn't been "slapped" is because I'm not trying to slap anybody (including you), I don't have the time to deal with every single misuse of rollback, and he isn't going around insulting other users. As to the number of edits, that isn't what it looked like you were saying to me, it seemed like you were saying that a user with less edits than 500 should not get rollback, or alternatively you should get it too. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding there. However, the situation with you is quite different, and it is not really possibly to compare to either Gorlack36 or Mike Rosoft. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Kingpin - I've addressed this with a couple other users over email and I hope you don't mind but I'll copy and paste the last one because it fairly well adddresses the concerns:

"It seems a lot of my decisions since getting the mop have been questionable. I'm not sure if this is just standard for all admins or if I've just been on a learning curve. That said, I've been watching WP:PERM for awhile now and have been taking it slow in there since receiving the mop. I realized this is a new user, but Fastily's basic criteria for rollback is 50 vandalism fighting edits. I reviewed the user's edits fairly thoroughly and could not find anything that would prevent rollback and I didn't count but there were roughly 50 vandalism fighting edits. The user has admitted to edit warring, but there is no real proof of this or to what extent unless we were to do a checkuser. I dont see abuse on their account nor do I see evidence of a sock. Reading the user's response to the ban of the IP, they were willing to self-block/restrain themselves from editing until the block on the IP was removed. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeltaQuad&action=historysubmit&diff=436019072&oldid=436014921) I see that as a very good faith effort to conform to standards and policy and also an admission of guilt and sincere regret. I feel the user learned from the lesson. About the Huggle/Twinkle concern, I have to look inward at myself. I was very quick to use templates and other advanced tools on Wikipedia and it was a concern at my first RfA because folks thought I might be a sock. The truth is that I have a background in programming and templates arn't that far fetched. I have to look at Gorlack36 as I look at myself and wonder if there is something in the user's background that isn't negative that makes them more adept to finding and using tools. I understand now how this might be seen as controversial, but I honestly still stand by the decision. I looked at your diffs. The Playstation one I'd have to agree was the wrong time to use rollback. The Voltaire one was perhaps the right decision. After looking in the article history it appears an editor has been trying to push a change in date and had been edit warring with a different editor. Have you discussed either of these diffs with Gorlack36? I don't think either of these deserve immediate removal without first discussing with the user. If you discuss with them why they arn't neccessarily vandalism and s/he should've used the undo tool instead and if s/he doesn't understand then I'll reconsider removing rollback."

I see that a couple users addressed minor minuse but I checked the user's contribs this morning and he has done well with the tool overall. For the record, though, I do not mind at all being reverted if you feel I've made a poor choice. You are the third person to address me personally about the issue and several others have taken an interest. I still feel it was the correct action, but if you disagree you are welcome to remove them and I won't put up a fight. As I've said in my talk page message, my pride is not a stopping block for you. @HXL I wasn't the admin that reviewed your request and the admin that did was not the admin that reviewed Gorlack36's request. There is a separation of rationales and issues here that should not be overlapped.--v/r - T P 16:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

TParis, none of my criticism was directed at you. My point was just that the same standards should be applied to all, especially when comparing an at-first ambiguous (what Gorlack dealt with) versus clear case (what I dealt with at Taiwan) of bad faith. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 16:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for your reply TParis. As I said, I don't plan to remove rollback myself at this time, however, I'll keep in mind that you don't have a problem with me doing so, and will keep an eye on the user, and perhaps remove it if misuse of the tool continues. That said, I did want to reply to a couple of your points. Firstly, about Fastily's 50 AV edits. This is not a great criteria to go by, it's simply advice that is offered by Fastily when declining requests. It's good advice as it gets the user more experience and gives us more to judge them on. It is not, however, in and of itself a good measure of if rollback should be granted or not. There is a lot more to take into consideration than simply counting up 50 good AV edits, and I think Fastily would agree with me there. Also, about the Voltaire diff. I don't think there is much question over if it was right to use (Huggle) rollback there. It simply wasn't right. Remember that the definition of vandalism is very, very narrow, much more so then a lot of users think. As WP:VAND makes clear, edit warring over content is not vandalism. Make sure you review the vandalism policy, you'll find it useful when judging if someone is using rollback correctly and if they should be granted it. Regards, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't so much take it as reverting an edit war, but rather reverting what appeared to be an editor trying to put some false information into an article repeatedly. That said, I'll review and refrain from granting anymore rollback (or permissions) until I am more familiar with the criteria.--v/r - T P 17:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, TParis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 18:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see my questions here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Gorlack36. Is this talk page discussion where the community consensus was determined or was there another location. Please tell me that you're not referring to the e-mails and or IRC comments on this as indicative of community consensus.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. I'm satisfied that it was fine. In fact, I have no problem with either the grant or the revocation of the rights. I had concerns but you've addressed them. BTW, I wouldn't sweat so much any issues at WP:PERM; you can't hurt much there, especially with rollback - anything done with rollback can easily be undone. Additionally, the only way you are going to become confident with the tools is by using them; I suggest WP:PERM is a good place to become comfortable with them as are XfDs. Page protection and blocking (except of registered vandal only accounts) is more difficult and more risky. Don't worry too much about what people think of your decisions so long as they are fair and unbiased. They can all be undone. Thanks for answering my questions, that goes a long way towards building everyone else's confidence.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I didn't realize how varied interpretations of policies and guidelines really was until now so I think I just need to take it slower all around. I appreciate that you came here to leave these words of advice and encouragement though.--v/r - T P 13:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Batty Bob

Hi TParis, you deleted the article before I had a chance to object. There were at least two references listed which featured him as the subject of articles, one of them a front page story, in the Houston Chronicle. This suggests some claim to notability. Thanks, 99.170.154.183 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I started the Batty Bob article and he seems as notable to me as Crazy Ray or the Barrell Man or any other number of unofficial sports mascots. I also had three articles about him from the Houston Chronicle. What can I do to fix and restore the article? Thank you. TexianPolitico (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There do seem to be a lot more sources for Crazy and Barrel than for Batty Bob. The question is whether the Chronicle articles are enough to establish notability.... 99.170.154.183 (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but I thought those three articles, from a big paper, would be enough to get the page going. He was certainly notable amongst the thousands of Astros fans in the 1980s and early '90s. He may have been more on par with Ronnie Woo Woo, who also has a wiki page. TexianPolitico (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The article in it's current form appeared to be, and this is extreme paraphrasing, "Batty Bob retired, had a drug problem, and got free tickets to every game." However, if you feel you can improve the article, I'd be happy to userify to TexianPolitico's account.--v/r - T P 21:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've userfied to User:TexianPolitico/Batty_Bob.--v/r - T P 21:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've never userfied before. How does that work? Do I just make changes to bring it up to snuff and then create the article again? Thanks. TexianPolitico (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's kind of the idea. It would be a good idea for you to have someone uninvolved in the article review it, I'd be happy to help. Then all you do is "move" the page back into article space when it's ready.--v/r - T P 13:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Par Excellence Award

Hi, would you take a second look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Par Excellence Award, please? I don't see a clear consensus for deletion, particularly as a good merge target was available. TerriersFan (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The "keep" voter's rationale is "in spite of Mtking". I dont call that a !vote based in policy and have ignored the vote. There is also a comment, not !vote, in favor of delete. As AfD is a discussion and not a vote, I've included that comment in my rationale. Your !vote is the only thing other than the deletes. I don't see merge, or that target, as a good topic as the folks on that list are not notable for the award. However, certainly the people on that list should be listed in the article under appropriate heading signifying what they are notable for.--v/r - T P 20:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this rationale. TerriersFan (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maulana Dr. Syed Kalbe Sadiq

Indeed, you are not the author and the page history reflects that. I didn't tag you as the author, however. The 'inform the author' hyperlink, which one ordinarily follows without verification through page history (to see that the 'author' is in fact the author), posted straight to you. Sorry for the mix-up, nevertheless. Zachs33 (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion of HTTP Working Group

Hi, I'm really sorry I could not participate much in the deletion discussion for the article as I had a bit busy. However, I'd like to present some cases for un-deletion of HTTP Working Group as it is indeed notable and has been mentioned in Wikipedia.

The WG is inactive as it is a concluded WG. Here's some resources that I failed to mention earlier :

And some I did:

HTTP Working Group

I believe HTTP WG is indeed notable and not a figment of one's imagination. People ought to know about it, as it laid the foundation of the internet as we know it.

Please do get back as soon as you can and pardon my english. Thank you.

RahulG (talk|contribs) 19:41, 9 November 2024 UTC [refresh]

I've thought a bit about this and I've decided not to restore the article. If you had made your point and no one had discussed it, I would give you the benefit of the doubt to improve the article and I might've been willing to userfy. In this case, two other editors disputed the validity of your sources. That said, I won't be upset if you decide to take it to WP:DRV. My pride is not a boulder on the road to Wikipedia improvement.--v/r - T P 17:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuwaupu

Greetings, I am the author of the Nuwaupu article which you regarded as suitable for deletion. At this point in time I have some questions on procedures and reasoning in relation to the decision to delete the Nuwaupu Article. Firstly, if an article is nominate for deletion using unsubstantiated claims, would that mean that a valid article that followed all the wikipedea rules and procedures could be lost/deleted due to the Wikipedea deletion procedure rather than the quality or faults of the article? Secondly, could you please elaborate in detail how you came to the decision of deletion, so that I can fully understand the reasoning behind your decision? Thank you. Logistical One (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi! My decision is based on the discussion, not on the article itself. You see, the Articles for Deletion process works based on consensus. My responsibility is to read the discussion and determine where consensus lies. In the case of the discussion on your article, the consensus was to delete. Right or wrong is ambiguous. Policy is based on community consensus and so the discussions are also based on community consensus. You can read about the process at WP:AFD. If you feel I've made an error, the next step after talking to me is beginning a discussion at WP:DRV.--v/r - T P 02:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for answering promptly. I understand answer to the second question, it was clear and concise. As for the first question, I am not sure as how you answered it. Could you please elaborate? Logistical One (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if an article follows all Wikipedia rules and procedures, it can be deleted if consensus during a discussion is to delete. However, the information is actually stored in Wikipedia's database and can be restored if the article obtains notability per our policies.--v/r - T P 06:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for HTTP Working Group

An editor has asked for a deletion review of HTTP Working Group. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

RahulG (talk|contribs) 19:41, 9 November 2024 UTC [refresh]

Thanks for notifying me. Although I still disagree with recreating or restoring the article, I wish you luck nonetheless.--v/r - T P 19:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your guidance. I would like to re-write the article if you could userify the page for me... I would try to establish notability. Thanks.

RahulG (talk|contribs) 07:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Tops In Blue Re-assessment

I just got your "Thank You" note regarding my re-assessment of the Tops In Blue article for WikiProject Biography. I had previously seen that article on the WikiProject Biography assessment request list, but was unsure of how to re-assess per your request it until I noticed today that the Military History WikiProject had upgraded its assessement of the article to B-class. --TommyBoy (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theatrhythm Final Fantasy

I'm curious as to the rational for you keep closing of the above. At least 2 of the keep !votes did so without any rational and one because sources were added. So could you explain it please, best Mo ainm~Talk 21:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading the AfD there is a clear point where improvement was made to the article by Hippie. When reviewing for consensus, I have to take into account that the delete !votes were prior to the improvements and may not have taken the improvements into account. I note that all of the keep votes came immediately afterwards and are unanimous after the changes. Not that the delete !votes were ignored, but I gave more weight to the !votes that were made after the changes.--v/r - T P 22:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

At best I would have said No Consensus to delete but one rational for keep and a few pile ons doesn't IMO give a keep closing. No problem not to worried about it. Thanks for the reply. Mo ainm~Talk 17:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

JF1 Deletion

Hello T-Paris I see you Deleted JF1's page, i have made a note of it, I respect your service to this country but I am sad to see you do not respect Public Figures in the Latin community. Many service men and women in the Armed Forces are of Latin Heritage and have died for this country. Even politicians know to respect the Latin community because they depend on our vote, Republican and Democratic a like. We are glad we can use you as a reference when the topic of JF1's Deletion come's up in the future. JF1's Older Brother is part of the United States NAVY and Armed Forces.

Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.70.63 (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. My responsibility is to weigh the community consensus in this discussion. If you feel I've evaluated it wrong, the next step after discussing with me is WP:DRV.--v/r - T P 19:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello T-Paris, I see you moved the comment to the bottom, but if you are trying to help restore his page I will listen. To be honest I just want to send you a couple of links to prove who JF1 is and that his brother is also part of the United States Navy and Armed Forces, and that's it...If I had the time, his page would not have been deleted. I am writing this comment only because when I was standing up for the page I had JF1 and the United States Armed forces in mind. If I still had to deal with the rest of the people who voted to Delete JF1...I would just let them see the huge mistake they made. I tried to help but you can see what happened...So yes, thanks for the link to un-delete but you are more experienced in wiki land than me and if you want you can do a better job...T-Paris you do the page and the problem is solved...and if you want references...let me know. I will send you links, refs, pictures, of JF1, his career and his brother, everything you need is on the internet,,,If not then just let the page be deleted and what shall be will be and everyone will see what happened!! There are screen shots of everything that happened on wiki.. Also here is a picture of JF1's brother when he was younger and started the military, he even looks like JF1 way back http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h411/geraldosolano/230615_10150239550327176_555942175_8729057_1029834_n.jpg ... JF1 himself has refs to back up his notability but wiki did not listen....friendly fire?....But if not, everything is on record and this great mistake will come to light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.70.63 (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to restore that page. There was a discussion and the consensus was overwhelmingly to delete. Frankly, I know nothing of the subject and that's the way it should be. My responsibility was to -close the discussion- and make the appropriate changes per the results. I did not make the decision, I simply restated the overall consensus. If you want to restore the article, the appropriate place is WP:DRV. As far as your comments "We are glad we can use you as a reference when the topic of JF1's Deletion come's up" and "If not then just let the page be deleted and what shall be will be and everyone will see what happened" I'm not sure what you mean by these comments but there really is nothing controversial here for you to be upset about. Have you even ready Wikipedia's policies on notability? Heres a reading list: WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:SOLDIER, WP:ANYBIO. If you want your article restored, you'll have to use the appropriate process at WP:DRV and explain why my close was not appropriate. Using the links I've given you (and reading them) will help your case. For the record, I did not move your first comment and it is generally considered appropriate to add comments to the -bottom- of a page and not the top for chronological sake.--v/r - T P 23:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, T-Paris thanks for doing your best to establish consensus but no one is perfect. Every one including wiki admins make mistakes. And as you show your loyalty to wikipedia I will show my loyalty for what I think is right and will forward everything to JF1's Label and the Latin Press,

Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.70.63 (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Again, please place your comments in the appropriate section.--v/r - T P 00:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello T- paris I read WP:N, WP:GNG as you said I should, and as I pointed out before I was right. JF1's references meet WP:N, WP:GNG standards.

There might have been references before that were duplicate copies indicating press releases, but those were removed and replaced with press coverage that met WP:N, WP:GNG WP:BAND just because a couple of articles were press releases that sites decided to print does not mean they all were, and the people who voted Delete after, voted because JF1's Wikipedia page was fixed and here are the links to prove that:

Notable Press:

http://batanga.tv/entrevista-%C2%BFconoces-a-jf1/

http://www.corrientelatina.com/dominican-recording-artist-jf1-releases-debut-music-video-como-yo.html

http://www.latintrends.com/2010/09/22/heat-seeker-jf1/

http://www.onlinesalsa.com/artist/jf1

http://tudecidesmedia.com/espectculos-artista-jf-celebra-mes-de-la-herencia-latina-con-el-nuevo-vi-p1114-128.htm

http://thepubreport.com/2010/11/04/recording-artist-jf1-to-donate-20-of-digital-sales-to-casa-del-nino/

http://unabaina.com/v1/jf1-el-tigre-la-nueva-sensacion-de-la-bachata/

Also here is the Alexa.com status on these websites:

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/tudecidesmedia.com#

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/corrientelatina.com#

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/batanga.tv#

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/latintrends.com#

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/thepubreport.com#

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/unabaina.com#

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/onlinesalsa.com#

JF1 himself has 500,000 views on Myspace, 10,000 Twitter followers and 1000 Facebook likes and counting which indicates that 500,000 people know who he is.

http://www.myspace.com/jf1musica

http://www.twitter.com/jf1eltigre

http://www.jf1facebook.com

http://www.youtube.com/jf1tv

JF1's page should not have been deleted under WP:BAND : 1. A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria: 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] ▪ This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following: ▪ Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3] ▪ Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. ▪ Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city;

The Notable Style is Reggaeton Bachateo and that local scene is the Latin and Dominican community of New York City.

JF1's page was disrupted multiple times, blocked and sabotaged until it was deleted, the history log has been screen shot, and everything that happened as well. Before I forward this to JF1's label and the Latin press, please look at the AFD discussion and let me know your thoughts. By the way I went to that link you told me to go to and it said discuss with admin who deleted the page...let me know if you can re-assess and what you think...P.s. if the page is not restored, this page, AFD, and JF1 Log is still screen shot for further reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JF1

Best Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.90.79 (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I have told you the appropriate place to take this is WP:DRV. I will not go against the consensus of the discussion and restore. Please, be my guest and forward your screenshots to JF1's label. Wikipedia is a private entity and the label can do absolutely nothing. There is absolutely no recourse for them or you other than WP:DRV as I've said several times. I've been more than friendly and helpful on this issue, any further dispute on this subject should happen at WP:DRV. Do whatever you want with your screenshots, I really couldn't care less about them. I'm not sure what you don't understand about Wikipedia being a private non-profit organization or what you don't understand about my instructions on the next step being WP:DRV.--v/r - T P 22:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello T-Paris, what you don't understand is that JF1 does not need to be on Wikipedia. If his Label sees this they will probably question the integrity of Wikipedia in a public forum. Including the policies and practices of all the admins and account holders on Wikipedia. Recourse? none looked for...Wikipedia probably interferes with search engine status anyway and diverts web traffic. Wikipedia looks for verifiable references. Wikipedia it self is not a verifiable reference for anything. When articles can be changed by anyone and a law less land can determine what is on Wikipedia. Thanks again for the comments.

Best Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.90.79 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, glad we've come to resolution, have a good day.--v/r - T P 23:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)