This is an archive of past discussions with User:Closedmouth. 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.
Regarding this edit at Taylor Hort, the guidelines at WP:CONTESTED quite clearly encourage that the person objecting to the PROD does not merely delete the {{prod}}, but that s/he also
Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page.
Notify the editors involved in the PROD by placing a {{Prod}} template on their user talk page.
Add or modify an {{Oldprodfull}} tag on the article's talk page, to prevent renomination under Proposed deletion.
Consider improving the article to address the concerns raised.
Other than deleting the {{Prod}} template, the editor followed none of these steps. Further, your reversion seems to suggest an agreement with not following WP:CONTESTED. With all due respect, and althought not an administrator, I had understood that one is to at least make an effort to follow the guidelines at Wikipedia. Is that not correct? — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. [...] If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.
Thanks for that <blockquote>. I hadn’t noticed that when I read WP:CONTESTED. By the way, would it change anything at all if one were to know that the article has been deleted four times previously only to be recreated under a slightly altered name this time and that the last two creations, under either name, have been by the same wikieditor, and that the article is most likely self-promotion? Thanks again! I’m always learning something new … — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I just discovered that this particular article, under the name Taylor Hort, has its own long history of deletions. Check it out here. I only came across the Taylor Hort article because I was on “vandalism patrol,” which is very random since I use Recent changes, and landed on that article. I mention this by way of explaining that it’s not a personal vendetta on my part. Thanks again for the further explanation of WP:CONTESTED! — SpikeToronto (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Closedmouth, thank you as well for your message. I must point out a couple of things which I realise you have addressed, but there are still (in my eyes) a number of issues outstanding:
The Diabetes Australia-NSW page does, to some extent, claim notability - however these claims are unclear and unreferenced. The claim of being "the leading charity in Australia dealing with diabetes" is the notability i think you refer to. However, this is a very, very bold claim considering the umbrella organisation Diabetes Australia and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation of Australia (which does not currently have a WP page).
Second, which I have touched on, none of the claims are actually referenced at all. They seem to come straight out of the PR booklet or a brochure for Diabetes Australia-NSW.
I therefore think, due to the lack of credibility to claims of being notable, and the way in which the article was written, that a POV review is applicable, as well as a WP:NOTABILITY, seeing as though these claims aren't credible as they stand.
Yes, this is the point of speedy; any reasonable claim of importance like "the world's second biggest blah" means I shouldn't delete it. Feel free to take it to WP:AFD if the claims made don't turn out to be entirely true. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why all of the pics I uploaded seem unusual, I just do it because I want to help Wikipedia with photos
Really21 (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Really21Really21 (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
About Mugdha_Godse_in_Goa.jpg file
Hi Closedmouth
I don't know what is the copyright issue with this file. I had taken this picture myself when I met the lady in question (Mugdha Godse). Therefore this is my original work and I and no one else owns the copyright.
I had indicated this in the description of the image, as far as I remember. I had also chosen the exact copyright type when uploading the image. I don't know where else to indicate this.
I have also uploaded some other images that I myself took. None of those had any issues.
One of the benefits of Wikipedia is that it is easy to add information. If one needs to indicate something in a hundred places, then it complicates the process.
Anyway, I will re-upload it and this time I will check carefully if I have missed out anything.
I stand by the deletion of that article, it merely described them as a hip hop group, there was nothing to indicate they were even remotely notable. Feel free to write an article that better demonstrates their notability. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Block review of User:Lolpwndurass
I don't think it was reasonable for you to permanently block User:Lolpwndurass after no edits. That strikes me as a harsh overreaction, where the username policy would probably recommend at most leaving a {{uw-username}} warning. rspεεr (talk) 07:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Which part do you disagree with? Do you think, for example, that being named "lolpwndurass" is worse than serial vandalism? rspεεr (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
While I'm at it, a hard block on User:Spamolotzzzz? Whether or not you personally approve of their names, these are real people who haven't broken any rules and you threw them unceremoniously off of Wikipedia. I'm fairly distraught about this. rspεεr (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Apparently the article about the company Runbox (a Norwegian email service provider established in 1999) was deleted in April, and I unfortunately weren't notified by email so I didn't get a chance to dispute the decision at the time.
I'm not entirely sure which part of the article breached the guidelines (compared to e.g. GMX_Mail), but I would be happy to rewrite the article and attempt to be more objective.
In any case I would appreciate a copy of the source of the original article so I won't have to start from scratch.
This address belongs to a server in the Netherlands through which numerous people have access to Wiki via a proxy. It's likely that some of the miscreants are spoiling it for one or two individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.109.55 (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm a novice Wikipedia user. I've had a hard time figuring out how to go about messaging people I think might have an interest in my project. I'm not trying to spam, I'm choosing specific users who have made significant contributions to pages related to north Minneapolis, where I live. I'm sending one message to those individuals, not multiple message to anyone I can. If there is a better way to contact those individuals or post info where people fitting that interest group (north Minneapolis) would be likely to find it, I'd appreciate you directing me as to how to do that. Sorry again for apparently spamming. And thank you for your help in teaching me how to properly use the site.--Ariahfine (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you please either restore the article for Laostha that I wrote and have maintained - or at least respond to me on my talk page as to why you feel it MUST remain deleted. I am a 5 year Wikipedia editor with 5000+ edits. I have written scores of articles. The Laostha article was dear to me. I would really like to have it restored, please. Thanks! --AStanhope (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I already responded to you; the article was a one-line stub which basically consisted of their name, their ethnicity and their genre. No offence, but I don't care about your credentials; Jimbo could've written this article and it'd still be deleted. Sorry. Try writing one from scratch but this time include some referenced statements on why they're notable. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Socionics - recent deletion of content by Tcaud
I think it is a start. First time anyone besides myself ever bothered writting anything. I did add links and more information to it, since all that was taken out. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
As much as I don't like to "rip someone a new one", it's important to me to defend newbies against unjustified blocks just as strongly as others would defend established users.
You said: I don't know why you think "Lolpwndurass" isn't an obvious instablock, it seems fairly blatant to me, but feel free to convince me otherwise.
Sure, I guess that is pretty blatant now that I think about it, I forgot about the no LOL-ing policy... wait, what? Seriously, what are you considering it to be a blatant violation of? Does the name disrupt something in some way I'm not following, or are there people who are deeply offended by a mention of pwnage? Are you protecting our demographic of users who are paralyzed by giggling upon reading the word "ass"? I really have no idea what part of the policy you were trying to apply there, let alone why it was so serious that you had to skip past {{uw-username}} and block right away. Care to explain more?
As for "General Secretary of the Soviet Union" being misleading, that one has a simpler response. I'd like to point out to you that the Soviet Union has not existed for 18 years. It's a little difficult to imagine someone actually being misled. rspεεr (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Credible Counter Argument against removal of statement that socionics is Protoscience
Since you seem to infer that my arguments against Tcaulldig's behavior are credible, but my sources or not I have made a credible counter-argument that shows that it would be correct and neutral to leave the statement that socionics is considered a protoscience, along with stateing that socionics is a social science. And that removal of a statement representing such is unneutral. You can find it on the socionics talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmcnew (talk • contribs)
cont'd
I have emailed Mr. Boaz Mosiob to send me an email releasing his photo of Wulf's grave into the public domain for any and all uses whatsoever. I will be in touch as soon as he responds. Many thanks.
Schmausschmaus (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry for approaching you directly but I'm having a spot of trouble with a CSD nomination. I've tried (using Twinkle) to nominate an article, John Edward McCarville, M.D., because it's a copy of "www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/american-doctor/5269093", but the notice doesn't appear in the article, though the author gets the warning. When I try to add db-copyvio manually, it's refused because the URL is on some kind of blacklist. What to do? Favonian (talk) 08:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you go hunting for license violations blindfolded? What do the first line of the "Fair Use Rationale" section in thesearticles say? Did you even read what was written on those pages? Where does it say everything has to be templated? --soumtalk16:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed possible living people from List. I had plans to do that earlier but the list is so huge and my PC so old that it took me ages to perform the correct actions. There is more cleanup to be done. Bands are not fully removed yet. Happy editing! -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The files themselves were actually deleted at commons (see here and here), I just deleted the local file page because it had no file associated with it (ie, it was empty). Thanks. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
You tagged this file as having no licensing info, which is technically correct. However, the contributor did write:
Photo taken by contributer at the location in Adams county Iowa, Queen city site. There is no copy write on this photo as the owner of the photo I give permission for it to be used in this article.
The contributor is long gone, so they won't be supplying a proper license. However, I think it is pretty clear they meant to release it into the public domain. Do you thin it would be appropriate to add a PD license or will the picture have to be deleted since the original contributor failed to do so?
Actually, yeah, re-reading that, PD makes more sense. When I tagged it I was thinking they were releasing it to be used on Wikipedia only, but I see what they meant now. Will fix. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Followup -- the editor appealed the block and apologized, but the appeal was denied and the block was left indef. I completely agree that a block should be maintained but I don't see why this offense should carry the death penalty, given that it's a first block and the user, clearly a kid, has apologized. (Writing to you as blocking admin.) Regards, Looie496 (talk) 04:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyone can make an apology. He was warned many times to stop what he was doing and he failed to do so. I see no reason to believe he would suddenly become a constructive editor just because he apologised. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
About moving a picture of the 1 penny Australia 1951 to Wikimedia Commons
I've seen that you hesitate about moving this scan of an old Autralian coin [1] to Wikimedia Commons. I think that it would be a good idea, as this coin is not copyrighted. The only problem is that I have made some research and I can't find back any autorithy article about copyright on Australian coins. Some authors speak about coins older than 1969 (or 1977 ?) which are no more copyrighted. But the original source [2] is not online anymore. DeepPurple46 (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello WWGB, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Racism in English literature - a page you tagged - because: Article has not been completely blanked. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Closedmouth (talk) 08:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The relevant criterion is "The author of the only substantial content has requested deletion in good faith, either explicitly or by blanking the page". The author has made an explicit request at Talk:Racism in English literature and so I believe that the criterion has been met. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I thought you requested because of the blanking, I didn't notice the comment on the talk page. It doesn't really matter though, the author is being helped in the IRC help channel and it will be userfied shortly. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
reverts
Hi. Why did you revert me? I thought under Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) that the numerical elements of dates and times are not normally spelled out (that is, do not use the seventh of January or twelve forty-five p.m. or Two thousand eight was the year that ... ).--Numbersnow (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I was asked to pass the following along ":::Regarding numerals in times of day, this section tells us, "The numerical elements of dates and times are not normally spelled out..." Could you, perhaps, pass this reference along to the editor who is objecting? Hertz1888 (talk) 08:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)"--Numbersnow (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem ... I screwed up at the beginning myself it seems (though I'm still not sure about one editors interpretations which seem to go outside the wikipedia rule). cool pic of your head (I presume_) showing up!--Numbersnow (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
See User talk:Kale Reeves. User has pledged to stop screwing around and wishes to be unblocked. Since this is a newb, it is likely he may have been unaware of the consequences of his actions, or of how to check his talk page until it was too late. Could we possibly unblock him, and put him on notice that any more shenanigans will result in a returned block, and no more chances? What think you? --Jayron3203:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Meh, if you think an unblock is wise, go ahead. I'm not inclined to believe a word he says, but I also couldn't care less, so have at it. --Closedmouth (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
76.94.235.111
Hello Closedmouth. I noticed that 76.94.235.111(talk·contribs·block log) is blocked indefinitely, though it is an IP address, and an dynamic one at that. I assume any edits have been oversighted, but could you provide some background to the block, or review the block length yourself. Thanks. -- zzuuzz(talk)11:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
You recently deleted the article on Turkish Poker - stating that it is not notable. There are over a million people who play this form of game? Is not a million people enough to pass the notability criteria? Can you please restore the page. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.47.9 (talk)
Good day. I noticed that you deleted at least one account of an infamous sockpuppeteer called ECW500. I remember one of his names being called GaryColmanFan which is very similar to legitimate user GaryColeManFan, but you deleted this sock/spoof account? I checked your contribs, but it makes no mention of deletions. Anyway, I have been following(and trying to root out) this vandal for ages now(although my IP has been changed by my provider), and would just be interested to know how many socks of this guy you unknowingly "cleared". I remember the suspected socks page had like 130-something, yet now it's less than that. I think thse socks of this vandal should remain tagged, but since you're an admin, I understand you probably have a good reason. it's just I'm ignorant to that reason, and would greatly appreciate being informed. Thank you. 41.245.174.119 (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I've been trying not to delete sockpuppet talk pages, but sometimes they slip through. The problem is when a page is in both CAT:TEMP and a sockpuppet category. If you find any pages that are like that, please do me a favour and remove the category "Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages". PS, my deletion log is here. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Mamluk Dynasty in Baghdad
did you delete the page? no wonder WIKIPEDIA is not suitable for improvements.
There are other sites ........ and as I said I laugh at you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zibi Fer (talk • contribs)
Guh, you blanked the whole page. We generally take that as a request for deletion. Did you want me to restore the article for you? --Closedmouth (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Baba Faqir Chand
I have worked on tone, language and references of the article Baba Faqir Chand. Please see it and if advisable remove the message.(B3 11:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhagat.bb (talk • contribs)
Re: Bye. You, PofD/Nev1 et al have stitched me up pretty good. I guess I'll have to abandon the account, and press on, as best I can. Let's hope that enough people get in on the act, to counteract dead-weights. I think they will – thoughtful and kind people will win out in the end, despite your best efforts. Cheers for all your help. If you are really tired, google citalopram - it'll help 87.114.172.36 (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
If you made a mistake ...
Ah, in looking, you ask to be made aware of your mistakes. What a relief! You are a person who does things right. So start by undoing your "Bye" comments, and enable my account. You're off on the wrong track, mate. So, in the interests of fair play, let's get my account off the floor and allow me to get on with my important work. Cheers, you're a good sort, even though you did loose the ashes this year!
These photos were not in immediate danger of deletion, but the claim that the copyright holder had released them was clearly false, so I removed it. That exposes them to danger, especially since the photo of R Lazer Gordon, which has the exact same provenance, was challenged. I have written again to the author of the article from which all three photos were copied, asking him where he got them; if I get no response again, perhaps after a while I'll put up a precautionary fair use rationale. But it would be better to find out for sure where they came from, and be able to honestly claim PD; then they can go up to the commons. -- Zsero (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
1) I added the cross reference on Talk:University of Miami. Just before he chose to archive the page, User:Ryulong chose to delete it. I felt that it was appropriate to reverse this pre-archive edit, but then another user, PassionoftheDamon, reverted it. I reverted that once, and mindfull of 3RR, I was prepared to let the controversy rest for a while.
2) There are much bigger issues here, including POV-pushing by Users Ryulong and PassionoftheDamon. They insist on inflating the image of University of Miami by adding unwarranted comparisons to other schools, and in the case of PassionoftheDamon, deleting the Forbes Magazine rankings without any edit summary. On Miami Hurricanes Football, I have raised specific, serious POV concerns on the talk page and PassionoftheDamon's user page and have been ignored. Whenever I place an edit to tone down the opinionated language, it was deleted without comment by PassionoftheDamon. When I post {{POV}} and {{cleanup}} templates on the page, they are removed without comment or cleanup edits. Similarly, when I post {{fact}} templates on the page, PassionoftheDamon deletes them without adding in the reference. How should I proceed with the underlying problem? Racepacket (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
As with most claims from User:Racepacket, that is not the truth of the situation at all. Racepacket's editing history reveals a pattern of quarrelsome, intransigent, exceedingly petty and agenda-driven behavior with regard to University of Miami-related articles. With regard to the Miami Hurricanes football article in particular, he has repeatedly blanked well-sourced statements because they confirm things he seems to find personally unpleasant, he has continually tried to insert contentious edits even after they have been rejected on the talk page by other editors as being frivolous, factually inaccurate, or simply poor writing, and he purposely uses misleading edit summaries to hide his actions. In addition he has embedded snarky, uncivil commentaries in the tags he has affixed to the top of the article, and he has continued to affix such tags even after other editors (e.g., ObiWan353) have concluded that the problems he imagines don't exist. Finally, where he has made reasonable, legitimate suggestions about the article (e.g., uses of active voice, requests for citations, etc.), those have been met and incorporated into the article. Not even this, though, seems to mollify him, as even after requested citations have been given, he willfully ignores them and insists on reverting to his own preferred, POV wording. In short, Rackepacket is not happy unless he gets his completely gets his way...facts, sources, and consensus be damned.
As to the issue of the Forbes ranking on the University of Miami article, that methodology has been soundly rejected by others at the Cornell University talk page (Cornell having been ranked 207th in such rankings), and one wonders why what's good for Cornell (which just happens to be Racepacket's alma mater) is not good for Miami.
It is also rather amusing to listen to Racepacket try and invoke 3RR above regarding his disagreements with Ryulong, as he has shown no such respect for the rule in his edits to the Miami football article.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I couldn't care less about the argument these two are having. I merely warned Racepacket about edit warring. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australia_halfpenny_1951_reverse.JPG){kind=link}