This is an archive of past discussions with User:Excirial. 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.
There's really no good reason to copy messages and replies between user Talk pages to "synch" them ... the trick is to keep comments and replies (on a particular subject) on only one page; the same one where it started.
In other words, please reply to this thread here, and not on my user Talk page. :-)
I am always syncing conversations so that it is easy for both users to archive them if they want to. I tend to archive every discussion i ever have, no matter the talk page it started on. But if you prefer to have it on a single page, then that is just fine with me :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, my IP changes every couple of weeks, so I guess that's my way of archiving ... besides, there's always the edit history. :-) — 72.75.98.105 (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This is just a reflection of my MOVE ON policy ... I don't look back (except to find an example of something) and I have no interest in my editing statistics, but I did want to self-identify as not being a newbie ... "This user has been on Wikipedia for 2 years, 5 months, and 24 days" sez all I need. :-) — 72.75.98.105 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Template:User totootwo
Howdy ... I found it ... {{User totootwo}} generates:
to too two
This user thinks that too many people have no idea how to use words that they should have learned in grade two.
I WAS TRYING TO PUT IN A NEW TEMPLATE WHICH WENT WRONG AND I TRY REVERTING BUT IT KEPT MESSING .THIS IS NOT DELIBEERATE VANDALISM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.18.180 (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Basing myself on the edit history of that page, changing {{WestMidlands-school-stub}} to {{WestMidlands-prison-stub}} before blanking the page several times and then breaking the layout a few times is borderline of what i can call WP:AGF. As you have not received a final warning or have been reported to WP:AIAV yet there is no reason to worry about the current warnings if you are indeed a good faith editor :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
RE Attorney Firings
Note: I removed the vandalism warnings as well as they are obviously not valid.
Don't understand the complaint. The reversion is objectively much worse than my changes which; shifted info in a 500 plus word lede to below the table of contents; added extremely relevant info about DOJ IG findings and appointment of special prosecutor; simplified language; and started removing completely irrelevant reems of information about "Other bush scandals." Could you explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 19:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I am rather baffled with this reversion as well. I cannot remember reverting this page, even though it was done a mere 10 minutes ago. There is no indication as to why i could have decided to revert this page; There is no indication of vandalism whatsoever present and since an edit summary was included i cannot have reverted it for "content removal". I am fairly certain that this was either a misclick or a hiccup in huggle causing an incorrect diff to be displayed. Either way, apologies for this mistake; I cannot be certain why this happened, but i can be certain that the revert should not have happened.
I undid my own revision so the article should be in the same state as you were working on before i reverted. As for the revert by Ossman: I assume he actioned based upon my revert. Again, apologies for the inconvenience caused! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm.... well, i did start stripping out a lot of text in a kitchen sink section at the bottom called "Other bush scandals". Could that have triggered something automatic? At any rate, thanks for taking the time.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Safe for a few anti vandalism bots out there, vandalism patrol is handled in a semi-automatic fashion with the user reverting being the one who "Pushes the button". Triggering something automatic would therefore be impossible. It is possible that i saw "Other bush scandals" to be a WP:NPOV edit, but before reverting on that basis i tend to take a longer to be sure it is indeed a valid revert. At least i should remember such reverts a few minutes after it was reverted. Therefore, i think that this was simply a manual mistake :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Excessive Editing
Hello Excirial. BentonComp is a username that was created for my High School Composition class to use in a project wherein they will create or edit a wikipedia article. It will allow me to track the changes they make, and monitor the quality of their content. I have done my best to inform them of Wikipedia's guidelines and standards, but some may still use the system clumsily and this should account for the excessive nature of BentonComp's edits. If this is in violation of any Wikipedia guideline, please let me know. Once the students have made their contributions, I will review each one and do my best to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards. Any articles that do not meet that standard will be deleted. BentonComp (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, Technically taken this is a violation of the WP:NOSHARE policy. User accounts are strictly personal and may not be shared between individuals or groups. A second issue you already ran into are the newpage patrols. As soon as an article is placed into the article space it is checked and removed if necessarily. This process is rather fast and there are simply to many new page and vandalism patrols out there to explain that it is in fact a school account. (IE: Pages get deleted before you can explain everyone tagging it) as you can see removing speedy deletion templates is also not really an option, as vandalism patrols quickly spot, warn and if necessarily, ban for that.
Now, for a bit of better news: There is actually a way around this. First and foremost i am not going to put much weight into the WP:NOSHARE policy for this issue, as the edits so far indicate good faith. However you should remember two things: First is that it is technically possible that another patrol is less lenient and will report the account, which will almost certainly lead to a block. Second is that you are responsible for the account. If a student engages in vandalism or otherwise questionable editing the account will likely end up blocked. Saying "It was a student" is not a reason to unblock (Rather its a reason to indef block for the no share rule!) therefore, i would suggest that each student has their own username to prevent any editor from enforcing the noshare rule. As for tracking their edits, this can easily be done trough Special:Contributions. I assume this will actually be easier since it allows each individual student to be identified :).
As for creating new pages, i would suggest using a user subpage. A user subpage is not checked for speedy deletion and therefore articles can be developed there without being disturbed by a myrad of deletion templates. Good articles can later be transfered over to the article space, while bad articles can be removed. For example, the Srizbi botnet article was fully developed in User:Excirial/Playground2, a user subpage. To make a subpage, simply create an article at user:BentonComp/Subpagename where subpagename is the name of the subpage.
I noticed that you added the qualifier "(disambiguation)" to the Maler disambiguation page, stating that you were "Properly labelling as disambiguation page." Actually, the Manual of Style states that, if there is no primary topic, "the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". I reverted your move, but I just wanted to drop you a note to explain why.
Thanks for the notice about this. The page was originally a redirect to Teoberto Maler when a new user created the second page about Maler (musician). I designated the page it redirected to as the primary topic; because of that i moved the page to a disambiguation subpage, forgetting that no article actually used the name maler. Thanks for fixing this :)! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reporting the legal threat against me promptly, before I even saw it. Good working with you, hope to see you around the Wikipedia. --Leivick (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Your more then welcome, though in retrospect i would probably have been better if i also left you a message about the ANI report, not only miss indef. But in either way, glad to help :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism - Some help
Hi, I noticed and reverted some vandalism here. I followed back the user link and noted that you have previously warned this user several times and wanted to draw your attention to the fact they are continuing this activity.
Thanks!
Prosthetic Head (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Excirial,
You went on my home page and issued a vandalism warning which I fully acknowledge. The problem is I'm the party being vandalized and I'm repeatedly having to go in to Wikipedia and resubmit the page. The other party (vandal) is changing historical facts relating to the band When In Rome and using the page to promote the unofficial When In Rome concerning events that are in the future. I believet Wikipedia is a historical/fact based encyclopedia, not a promotional tool. Is there any way you can help to block the user from continuous vandalism ? For your reference the official When In Rome band reformed in 2006 and has a website which can be confirmed at www.myspace.com/wheninrome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.105.165 (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Based on the diffs i don't think that neither you nor the other party is vandalizing this article. From what i can see if that this is just a content dispute where you and the other editor disagree on what should be the content of the article. There are several ways to solve this, but the first and easiest step is simply discussing it with the other party, either on the articles talk page or on the talk page of When In Rome Original Member Site. If discussion doesn't help then you can try Despute Resolution. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
For removing the vandalism that IP user added to my talk page. Seems like he is taking a liking to you now, so allow me to return the favor :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC) A bit unrelated, but might it be time to Archive your talk page? it is rather large.
Not sure that I have anything to add to the sockpuppet discussion, other than to agree. Your observations cover the territory. I don't think the contributor means harm, just trying to spam a bit, and is probably not very familiar with Wikipedia guidelines. But the article, and the attempts to insert the agency into other articles, don't seem to pass the smell test. JNW (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
It's probably time to archive the whole damn thing. You're welcome to go ahead and do it for me, if you have the time and inclination. Otherwise, I'll get around to it by the next decade. Cheers, JNW (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Done, i added the first 100 threads to archive 1 and then another 80 to archive two. The archive boxes are on top of your page, in case you missed them. Og, i also set up automati archiving. MiszaBot will automatically archive threads older then 7 days to your archives, unless there are less then 10 discussions on the page. I set the talk archive size limit to 100k, which is between 80-100 threads. After that, a new archive will be made automatically (All you need to do is update the archivebox template every now and then in case a new archive has been made). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I just returned from dinner to find my talk page all neatly archived--I would not have known where to begin. So now I'll raise a toast to you for your good work. JNW (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
JNW toasts Excirial with the unofficial Drinking Man's Barnstar.
You are more then welcome, and thank you for the toast! An image sure livens up my user page quite a bit. But i guess i will go do what my status template would say i am doing now, and that is getting some sleep. Its rather late around here :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)23:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Your welcome. And you weren't exactly the only one with this problem. Somehow there were 4+ IP's adding this to around a hundred random articles before getting banned. My guess its some spambot doing this seeing they edited this much in just 2 minutes or so... A well, at least the current IP's are blocked now :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! My, this literally came out of nowhere, and in fact i didn't even know that barnstar existed. It will get a nice place in my (barn)star galaxy! But first i need to reply to this message :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm equally delighted at your own presentation of the RAK star! Thanks very much! I'm suprised no-one gave you the userpage award earlier, to be unaware of its existance is mind-boggling! BloodedEdgeawards20:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Might have something to do with that i mainly work with vandals, who aren't that likely to give out stars ;). More serious again, this is actually quite the rare star. From what i can count it has only been given to about 300 ish wikipedians in its 2+ years of existence. Maybe that ias also a reason i never saw it before: The only time i need to look at WP:BARN is when i need the code to award a star, or need to look up a very specific star. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd have thought you may have saw it when skimming through WP:BS, but alas. Anywho, how do you know the number of users who have been awarded a specific 'star? Is it guesswork, or is there a special programme for doing so? BloodedEdgeawards20:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah my friend, that is a highly secret method that also tells me there are at least 6 people that directly duplicated my navigation bar or entire userpage for their own purposes. But no, its actually just a simple trick. I assume that this image is virtually exclusively used in the barnstar template, which means that about every image on every page is an award (Of course its possible people have them in their talk page archives and on a seperate page, or they use the image outside the template, but that should be minor). All you need to do is get the full list of where the image is linked to and then scroll around it. In this case i noticed i could click "Next 100" a total of three times, so there are 300 instances of that image around wikipedia, thus around 300 awards :). I am pretty sure there is also a program for this, but this is the easiest way to get an estimate ;) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Aah I see, clever thinking, I can see the logic behind your methods. Considering there must be at least a few hundred thousand active editors around Wikipedia, only 300 or so getting the userpage award is hugely dis-proportionate. I guess people just can't be bothered to spend 10-15 seconds handing it out, or maybe only a hand-full of Wikipedians actually have a decent page. Still, I find it tiring to think about it :(. BloodedEdgeawards21:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
153,549 active editors on a total population of 8,029,147 to be precise. Actually, i think the main problem is little people know the star. I have seen quite a few nice talk and user pages, but since i never even knew the star, i never awarded it. Also, don't forget that a star such as the vandalism barnstar is placed as a reaction (someone removes vandalism from a talk page and the owner gives a star in appreciation). A userpage ia kind of "Always there" so little people will especially give a star for that. Guess that also explains my pleasant surprise eh? Oh, and for the copyover: If you respond there i will be forced to copy the responces here par my own policy that both users should have a complete copy to archive (Otherwise discussions are completely unreadable after a while ^^) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I normally hand out a userpage award every week or so if I come across pages that (are in my opinion) good enough. This is just to keep the receiving user in high spirits and etc, a community oriented thing. As for your replying policy, OK, I hope you don't mind continually having to remove talkback templates :). BloodedEdgeawards21:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for the barnstar for the DPS articles. They're looking a lot better though there's lots more that could still be done. As you might have seen I've moved the copy for the Mathura Road and R K Puram schools to create new articles. These are both highly important Indian schools and really needed their own articles. I suspect in the long run all the other schools will merit their own individual articles and the parent page can host a list of all the schools in the Society. There is however only so much that can be done at any one time. I shall see if anyone else rises to the challenge! Dahliarose (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Bekah3
Hello again, Excirial ... I need the opinion of Some Other Editor in regards to articles being created by Bekah3 (talk·contribs):
I mean, should they be fixed, or are they speedy delete candidates? Regardless, I wish that you might take a Gentler and More Patient approach to raising their consciousness about things like WP:BIO and how to use <ref></ref> and {{Reflist}} ... putting lipstick on these pigs may be a Fools Errand (if they're going to be deleted eventually), but this is the mood I'm in today, and I have some time to kill with nothing better to do ... but I am not in the mood for holding their hand, either. :-)
I forgot to mention that both of them have already been speedy deleted several times already, so they obviously haven't taken the hint. <Sigh> — 72.75.110.31 (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Pidhu The Great
Hi Excirial, if you feel this article needs to be deleted thats fine with me, I would point out he is a popular standup comic and can be found on youtube. Interestingly I have noticed that anything remotely to do with sikhism is very sensitive (relatively much more so than Islam or Judaism) to ridicule/criticism See Sikh Extremism or BehztiSatanoid (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
John A. McDougall
Hello Excirial. I just wanted to let you know that on review I declined the speedy deletion on this article, and edited it down to a stub to address the WP:SPAM issue. I think he is borderline notable in the nutrition world, but if no 3rd party sources are provided soon to establish notability, I may AfD it myself. I'll give the creating editor a few days, though, as they are clearly new to Wikipedia. Rockpocket00:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification about this, and nice work cutting the advertising from the article. When i originally evaluated the article it read much like and advertorial in a magazine regarding "an all new method that makes you loose pounds while smiling". Personally i thought that little could be salvaged from the article, as it (Apart from spam) was an obvious COI. Still, your editing somehow managed to make it compliant with the CSD guidelines. Just some third party sources now, and it will be an ok article. Again, thanks for the heads up, and thanks for saving an article from removal, if at least for now :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)09:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Herbert Ganado
Thanks for your interest in this article - but I would appreciate it if you at least gave me two minutes to tidy things before tagging it etc! Contaldo80 (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The only time i see article's, is the instant they are created. As of such, the only time i can tag an article is then. Maintenance tags such as the ones i added are not a thing to worry about really; A lot of article's have them. Its just a signal to fellow contributers that an article has a need for certain activities. In case the original contributer does not return, other people can take up the work required.
Of course, you are free to remove the tags altogether when they are no longer valid. Also, if i am placing maintenance tags such as those added, it is also a sign that the article is in ok shape, as i can be quite generous with placing WP:PROD, WP:CSD and WP:AFD templates at times as well :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
กงจักร ใจดี - Thai, not Swahili
Excirial,
I note your assessment that กงจักร ใจดี is Swahili. It is not. It is Thai. The "list of dates" is a biography, diary style, listing education from elementary, to collegiate, to post-grad. I can't track where that article went after it was marked "gone", but I see the "Goodjai" page and the header that it is Swahili, which, as I just said, isn't correct. - Thaimoss (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see. I didn't realize you had a separate Viki site for definitions. In that case can I add a sentence to the lying type "bluffing" in the main "lie" article about double bluffs?
Lizzie.
Hello Lizzie!
Wikipedia and Wikitionary are indeed split into the two projects they are, to prevent a creating a mixed encyclopedia/dictionary. However, i am honest if i say that i know near nothing about the wikitionary policies and practices, as the English wikipedia is the place where virtually all my edits are located :). Personally my guess would be that a double bluff is a subform of a regular bluff, like a doublecross is a different form of crossing someone, which means i would create a subparagraph in the bluff article. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'll just nominate Pepsi Wylde for AFD. I suppose technically as someone has challenged the Speedy, it is the proper thing to do. Five minutes of my life that I won't get back though. :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 12:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Seeing the IP's are somehow all drawn to an article while they have never edited before, i assume whoever is removing the speedies is just a sock for the username in question. Maybe it is indeed better to just AFD the thing, since its quite the well covered hoax (I mean, where did that logo come from?). Either way, if the IP's will remove the templates as well, i think ill just waste 5 minutes myself on creating a WP:SSP case on this :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, although they might be coming through different providers. Just realized it's six months since I nominated something for AFD. So rusty that I had to look up how to do it. :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 12:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I have been using a slightly modifided version of the template you use for your user page for a while now. I was feeling a little guilty that people might think that I made it. I just wanted to make sure that its ok that I use this and if so if you would like me to leave the copyright thing at the bottom as it is your idea just slightly modified. Hda3ku (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
A Note
"July 2008
"Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Run Lola Run has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 18:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)"
I use a roaming IP address, and have never viewed, never mind edited, the aforementioned page.
Hi, I went ahead and deleted the tag you left on the Dutch Wallace article. He was a pro football player and I have listed his stats from the NFL, Pro Football Reference and Database Football within the infobox. Every football source had his name as Datch Wallace, so I kept it as such. This should remove any confusion between the football palyers and the shipbuilder. If you have any questions/concerns, let me know. --PA Pen (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have just written this article from first hand knowledge. I would argue that it is not "blatant advertising" but certainly encyclopaedic and fits Wiki criteria. It is factually accurate and the info is sourced. I have no personal or professional connection with the subject. I hope that you will agree to remove the "speedy deletion" tag and let the article stand. Thanks. Captainclegg (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hiyas captain,
I agree theat fully removing the article was to harsh a judgement from my side. I see an administrator already agreed with your point by removing the CSD tag, which i subsequently replaced with a few standard maintenance tags. Two points to improve the article: Some more sources would be very nice, especially if they are third party. Also, good job removing my main problem with the article: The use of words such as "Leading", "Gorgeous" and "Fantastic" Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for the advice. I have followed them and I think you will find it improved. Can you remove the 'source' tag now? or does it matter? Captainclegg (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
With pleasure, and Done. However, you are free to remove maintenance tags yourself (When they don't apply anymore that is). Every tag except the CSD tag may be removed by any editor. The CSD tag is the only exception, to prevent a lot of work replacing those in case the author of an article disagrees.
Hi. Just for your information, I changed your speedy tag on 'Secret burger'. Since the article obviously includes "blatant and obvious misinformation" I figured a DB-VANDALISM was more appropriate. Happy hunting, Yintaɳ 12:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct. I nearly tagged it with a NONSENSE tag, before i realized it was no gibberish text - just some nonsensical rambling as you already pointed out. Thanks for changing, and also happy hunting to you :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
While i will not object to replacing the speedy with a prod template on your side, i find the reason "Not a valid speedy. He is most famous for" a little odd for a reason. The article itself was deleted as an A7 with the same content minutes ago before it was recreated. Also, the reference for "Most Famous" is for a weebly site, which is blacklisted on wikipedia's spam blacklist. Besides, how many people put something such as "He is most famous for invention the moon" or something silly? :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Likewise, i see you stated on the WP:AIV that the edits are not vandalism - Yet according to WP:CSD and the standard overview of blocking templates removing speedy templates repeatedly is. Could you please elaborate this? Did i miss a change in this policy in my two month's of away time? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
A7 only demands an assertion of notability, which means that if you write that I am the king of Uganda, the page shouldn't be deleted as A7 (however I wouldn't hesitate to delete it as G3 - vandalism). The user was evidently confused and lost, I didn't think that deleting it on the spot again and blocking him was the best thing to do. Discussing with an user can lead to less frustration on both sides, and a less dissatisfied "customer" :). -- lucasbfrtalk12:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - But most times clearly non notable claims also fall under A7. I always report people telling me they created a band or facebook group as an A7 because they are not notable, even if they say they are. Since that website was a blacklist, i just threw it under A7 and thought i was done with that article.
How wrong i was. 2 recreation's, a dozen of speedy tag removals and like the cherry on the cake a socketpuppetry case for the creator and 4 or so wikipedian's juggling AFD, CSD and PROD templates with none agreeing what the best way is to say it should be removed. If that was a good faith editor this circus most likely got him crazy. O well, at least i cannot say my newpage patrol was a boring one =). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Good faith editors usually don't start sockpuppet accounts to save COI articles about themselves... But I agree, there have been more elegant deletion processes. Yintaɳ 12:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Please don't flag SPI cases for speedy deletion. It causes the process to break. Just ask a clerk to fix the problems. Mayalld (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
*Excirial mumbles something about an even larger circus* Actually, i will just leave this entire case alone except for commenting. This is just escalating way to far for something this casual. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
L'OCCITANE Foundation
I have placed {{db-ad}} on L'OCCITANE Foundation, an article which you had {{PROD}}'ed. I believe this article falls under the category of "blatant advertising" and is suitable for speedy deletion. I have left the {{PROD}} tag in place. If you feel that speedy is not appropriate, please feel free to undo my nomination. But I'd love to know your thinking in that case. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!13:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Good catch on this. JFYI - I removed your prod and put for CSD because it looks more like an attack since it is negative, mentions a name and a school. JCutter (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, i do not agree with your assessment of the article’s subjects notability. I checked his name trough an altavista search before nominating, and even now i have re-checked his name trough google i find little indication of notability. While the amount of pages found is huge, only a few are about the Arindam Mukherjee we are talking about.
I have not found a single result that complies with the wikipedia guideline on sources. The source you added to the article is a self-written source, and as of such not compliant to WP:RS. The rest of the search results (As far as they are about the subject of the article, and not about other people) only mention his name as a writer of an article.
All in all, i think that the subject does not really meet the WP:N, WP:V, or the more specialized WP:CREATIVE criteria. Yet, since there may be notability, i agree with the removal of the CSD template. The subject is not so clearly not notable that it warranted a CSD on second thought :). However, i still think that the notability itself is minimal. Ill keep an eye on the article for the next few days, to see if it should be sent to WP:AFD, or if it is notable enough to stay.
Those are two excellent sources you added there; Personally i see no reason anymore to take it to AFD now - there is a claim of notability, and a source to prove it. And thanks for giving me this (Perhaps unintended) gentle reminder that i should use PROD templates instead of CSD on the not-certain-remove pages. Sometimes i wonder why i just keep sliding into the habit of CSD'ing instead of PRODding those.
We've probably all done at some time or another, but can you make sure you actually revert toa clean version when you undo a vandal edit? You undid an edit by User:142.33.233.222, but went back to one User:142.33.233.213 (probably actually the same person from the closeness of the IP addresses), which had actually included far more vandalism and deletion of content. David Underdown (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Your right, this kind of chameleon vandalism is the only thing that is rather hard to tackle with Huggle. If i remember well it used to have a feature to detect IP edits from the same IP range, but i assume they disabled it in the lite edition of Huggle.
As for correcting it, its rather hard to do so. It would mean that for each edit i would have to check the recent history of that page, which most times is not tainted by this form of vandalism. This would create a lot of overhead for very little results. As of such i only check the page history if it is a heavily vandalized article, or if i spot the edit by chance. Other then that, the time investment just would not prove to be efficient, compared to results Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that once another editor sees that a reversion is performed, they are less likely to double-check what's happened.. Using something like popups chekcing the history doesn't take very long at all. David Underdown (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Tagging
Thanks for your tagging work, I've noticed you're doing a good job. However, here you added {{WP:NEO}} to a talk page ... bad move, that transcluded the whole guideline, and put that talk page into the same categories as the guideline. I changed it to [[WP:NEO]]. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
*Slaps forehead*. Nice catch there - it seems i accidentally used {} instead of [], causing the page to be transcended into the message, instead of just linking it to the user. Thanks for catching and fixing this! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
It took me quite a while to even figure exactly what was going on here - i remember i tagged that article for removal, i could check the logs to see it HAD been removed, and yet i could not understand that you did not receive a message explaining why it was removed. I finally figured out that the article was created under user:Kylie Nelson, which i assume is also you? In that case you might want to read WP:SOCK for rules on having more then 1 account :)
As for the article, it was removed on two different ground - . The first one, Neutral Point of View, rules that an article has to be witting from a neutral stance, as if someone is just plain describing the business. When writing an article, don't just highlight the good things of the business, and try to avoid any "Peacock" words and sentences such as "An excellent player in the ... market" and "Of Exceptional quality". Those lines are most times indications that an article is in the area of advertising, which often causes deletion. Full details can be found at WP:NPOV.
The second one, notability, rules that the subject of an article must be notable in some form - that is, have a certain amount of recognition in a worldwide point of view - for example, the butcher around the corner is not notable, but tv persona, mountains, et cetera are. Details can be found in WP:N
I am not sure what to do with that article. About 95% of the content is just a page from the book itself. Normally that would be a copyvio, but the text is dated from 1750, thus copyright is guaranteed to have expired. Still par WP:NOTTEXTBOOK Wikipedia is not for placing books.
If i were to remove the section there would be almost nothing left of the article. The text would be "Book A is written by B. Reference: The book. External link: Online version of the book". Since the article offers no further information, i also cannot make a stub out of this, as even for that to little information is in the article. Any advice? Maybe prod it or take it to AFD? If so, on what grounds?
(And by the way, do i recognize that menu bar from somewhere? ^^)
Hi Excirial, I'm not sure either but in such circumstances I tend to categorize and hope that brings it to the attention of people interested in that category. As its a brand new article I would be inclined to give the author some time to improve it - thats why I replaced the speedy tag with a notability one.
As for the menu bar I like to think of it as a pastiche and a hybrid influenced by more than one source; but if yours was the original of that genre of user page I'd be happy to attribute or remove the bar. ϢereSpielChequers09:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps that is indeed the best course of action with the book. If i, as a deletionist, have a hard time finding a guideline that would allow for removal of an article then that most likely means that it should stay. Thanks for the comment on that one
As for the menu bar, that type of yellow menu bar was indeed made by me; But please, we are working on a free encyclopedia, what are the chances that a simple menubar here would be copyrighted or owned by someone?. Everyone has permission to copy any part of my userpage and hence, some people use its basic templates with some color modifications to build their own page. The only reason for me commenting on the menubar was that i am happy to see that people actually use it, which means they must like it :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Addmaster (UK) Ltd
Sorry for this page, I saved the page before completion and is was marked for speedy deletion. Apologies I removed the warning believing that if I added to it this would not be a problem, then I got a message that I was vandalising the page.
Please remove this entry and I will start again and do it properly this time!
It seems you had the bad luck to encounter two New page patrols at the same time! Due to this both a CSD and a PROD template got placed onto the page. CSD templates are forbidden to be removed by the author of the page, due to pages marked as CSD are judged as beyong recovery or vandalism. Therefore, when you removed the template, you got a vandalism warning from someone.
Since i was not the article creator i just removed the CSD template for you, which means that you can edit the page at will now (Just leave the PROD template alone - an admin will have a look at the page in a few days and will remove it if the article is ok). Also, when you get a CSD warning in the future, you can contest it by adding {{hangon}} to the page, along with a reason at the articles talk page. This will signal the reviewing admin to wait a lil longer before removing :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Your welcome. Also, when using talk pages remember to sign your posts. You can do so by adding four tildes (~~~~) after your comment. When you save a page it will automatically become a signature. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC) (<--- Like this)
Hi, just letting you know that I've removed your speedy from Nestor Courakis because the criteriaa you used (A1) only applies to very short articles which don't identify the subject, which Nestor Courakis didn't seem to meet. Feel free to use a different criteria or AfD. - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you - I mainly tagged it as an A1 article because it seemed to be some combination of a biography and a curriculum vitae that did not offer any real information about the article's subject. I settled with A1 due to this complete lack of context but your right, i should have used A7. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Nemesis & Arrogance
Good afternoon Excirial,
Could you please explain why you have opted to delete the "Nemesis & Arrogance" entry due to them being a "non-notable band"?
I have done some research regarding the outcome, and found this article:
There are over 125, 000 google search hits for Nemesis & Arrogance, I would not call this non-notable. These are not all "self promotion". If there are any problems with the way the article has been written, these can be ammended, however I do not accept your secletion of "non-notable band" as a valid reason for not allowing this article to be published. I would also question your knowledge of the UK Hip Hop / Grime genre's and therefore your ability to call this band "non-notable" in the first place.
I re-reviewed the article, and i agree with your assessment that notability is not that big an issue in this article. As of such i removed the PROD tag and replaced with a set of more detailed, standard maintenance tags.
Why did i tag the article in the first place then? The main issue with the article was the weak quality of its external references, along with the structure of the article itself. In fact the article seemed to suggest that there was a lack of notability covered with a lot of external references which are in all due right nothing more then links were CD's can be bought, or article's with nothing more then a mention, meaning they fail the reliable sources guideline. Granted, i should have don a simple search but alas, i didn't.
As for the link and my knowledge of the hiphop culture: I got no knowledge on those, yet these are not required to mark an article for CSD. All article's fall under the General notability guidelines, and each specific category has its own more specialized sub guidelines - in this case WP:BAND. It is up to an article to indicate why its subject is notable. If an article can't prove it has notability under the guidelines it is tagged for WP:PROD/ WP:AFD, or in worse cases WP:CSD. The link you provided is (as you can see) a user subpage and not an official policy or even a guideline. I tend to agree with its content though, yet in this case i assumed the general guideline provided enough information (Which, it seems, was a mistake to assume).
And last: Remember to sign your comments. You can sign them by added ~~~~ after you post them.
Thank you for your speedy reply and thank you for reversing the decision regarding the article. Apoligies for not siging the message, I am new to Wikipedia. I have noticed that there are still some issues with the article. I will correct all of those within the next 24 hours. If there are any problems with the edits that I make, plase let me know & I will correct them!
No need for apologies whatsoever! Also, if you need any help regarding Wikipedia or an article, feel free to ask. Alternatively, if not not around, you can use the Helpdesk.
Hi I'd like you to reconsider the deletion of this post. I am just trying to help people who have the R4 Card as there is nothing on wikipedia about it. What can I do to make you reconsider, I am new here and this was my first article.
Do I need to provide a more indepth analysis of the R4 Card and how to get Free Ds Roms?
I have checked the article twice now to see if there is any way to rewrite it for Wikipedia, but i am afraid that there is little chance to do as such. Par WP:NOTHOWTO wikipedia's should not be manuals or how-to on how to do various things. Also, even if you could rewrite it, there would probably be an issue with downloading copyrighted games being illegal in the US where the servers are hosted.
Is there nothing you can do? Well, MAYBE. Wikipedia has several sister project, one of them being Wikihow. Wikihow is a project especially for how-to's such as yours. While i am in no way familiar with the guidelines at that project you may be able to add the how-to there. Just be careful with copyright issues, as this download site seems pretty close to violating copyright laws. Perhaps it would be better to leave out those links to actual download sites. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)16:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!
That was the fourth time in a mere two days that you were the blocking admin for a spambot. Thanks for that lightning fast speed on blocking them, it certainly saves me a whole lot of pages that need to be tagged (And of course, a whole lot that needs to be removed). Keep up the great work :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)09:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Before translating texts, you should always check if the text is not a copyright violation as after translation it is much harder to catch copyright infringments. 11:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, i did that, but it came back clean. After checking my recent searches i found out i accidentally hit a key before submitting the search causing the aforementioned result :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello again, hope you don't mind but I've declined this deletion as I think I've managed to establish context (glad I'm editing anonymously, I'd hate it if any of my mates knew I'd identified that subject). ϢereSpielChequers11:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, i see the article was improved. This was the revision i tagged, and back then it made no sense whatsoever to me. I simply took it for some attempt to create an autobio. Glad you identified it - but seeing the context where "Mates" is often used, i cannot help but agree with the assessment it is better they don't know :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Done. I've also blocked the underlying IP range, for now, but we'll have to see if they come up with another. – Luna Santin (talk)11:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The effect will be the same, just taking a bureaucratic roundabout - if not for correctness sake, then avoid confusing / insulting a good faith editor of making test pages :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Judging by his user talk page full of prod and speedy notices, all from today, I should have tagged it as vandalism. The user is obviously gaming the system with his barrage of questionable garbage articles. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I am a bit more cautiousness with this particular editor. I have been around most of the day and in fact i have read the bulk of the pages he produced. The pages themselves weren't that bad, they were just not something we would include. As for gaming the system, it is of course possible and i don't deny that in retrospect we conclude he was doing that. Yet for now it is probally better to assume good faith and not Bite the newbies (I know, these are the most annoying guidelines to get quoted on your talk page).
Still, it is probably better that way. I am certain i scared away some good meaning editors in the past when i went on a vandalism fighting rampage. Cleaning up those pages only takes a minute in case we find out he is indeed a bad faith editor. But if he is a good faith one it might take a lot longer to get him back after telling him hes a vandal :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
(EC)To keep the discussion at one place, I'll post my message here: Looking at the user's talk page, he seems to have made a hobby out of copy-pasting stuff from the 'net into WP, to the point that it is becoming disruptive, and I agree that Wuhwuzdat's warning is warranted. I have retagged the article as a copyright violation. decltype (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
And a note: the last page he created with: "this page is of my own research and contains no sentences from any other website", which is provably false. Seeing that, I am unfortunately no longer able to AGF. decltype (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, i didn't disagree with the warning - it is disruptive editing. My main point was that this might be a good faith editor, but that last edit indeed makes it unlikely. I left a standard need help message on his talk page in the hopes he might turn into something more productive; Likely false hope of course, as the bulk of the people who get up to level 3 or 4 warnings are just plain ducks. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Excerial. I don't want to be a Drama Queen or anything but please look again before you say nobody tried to explain things to him[1]... Yintaɳ 20:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I kind of missed that due to it not having a separate header. Most of the times i just look at the table of contents to see if anything else then the default CSD template noticed have been posted for the user, so in this case i did not see. What can i say about this user? Having been called overzealous and accused of not assuming enough good faith in the past its kind of a surprise that this time it was the other way around. To bad actually - i really hoped this was just a misguided good faith editor, but so far his editing pattern just seems to show disruption. Thanks for the heads up though :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, the pitfalls of Assuming Good Faith... tell me about it... [wry grin] Anyways, see you around. Happy editing, Yintaɳ 20:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
UMBRELLA Consulting
I would suggest you do an AfD for UMBRELLA Consulting as it is not irredeemable promotion, you could delete the promotion text yourself. Interestingly the article was recreated by a vandal as well as you can see by the attack page delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Hell Bouncer here.
Do you want to give you the VAT of UMBRELLA Consulting and the IBM partnership agreement?
Well, actually i was looking a bit more for articles about Umbrella Consulting in papers such as the New York Times or on the larger news sites. Anything that published by a third party source (Meaning not your company or anyone related to your company) which has a substantial size (Which means no local newspapers). Of course the article's must provide a bit more information then just menrioning UMBRELLA Consultings name.
Well, that seems to be an good source, at the very least good enough to count as one. As with sources, the more the better so if you would happen to have extra sources to these types of articles, feel free to drop me a line. As for rewriting the article, it might take some time to do so. I removed the deletion template though, so time should be less of an issue now :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
23:26, 13 May 2009 TexasAndroid (talk | contribs) deleted "UMBRELLA Consulting" (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion). Looks like another editor decided that the article didn't signify notability par WP:N and WP:CORP, likely due to the complete lack of sourcing. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)08:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia intellectual
Well, it certainly made no sense to me so bob's your uncle. The words and some of the phrases, sure, but all the rest was all 'Huh?'. Lots42 (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, its quite understandable - what he sayd is that a Wikipedia Intellectual is someone who bases what he knows on Wikipedia articles, instead of basing it on books nought in stores. The second line is a characteristic for that group, noting that they know a lot of odd facts due to the detail in Wikipedia. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)09:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This does not in any way qualify as vandalism, and believe me, i received enough notices about my overzealousness while doing vandalism patrol. The article itself is just a term the user made up, or some form of new word that came into circulation. Sure, it does not belong on Wikipedia, but that does not automatically qualify it as vandalism. Unless the user disrupts Wikipedia by creating the article over and over albeit being warned, this is considered behavior of a new account which does not know its way yet.
Hence, cut the user some slack! It is an account created today, so accusing it of creating vandalism pages on these kind of article is considered biting. If we need to give plain vandals 4 warnings before banning them, there is no need to scare an apparent good faith user away :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)09:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Point also taken. Finding a correct balance between WP:AGF - WP:SPADE - WP:VAND is complex as they kind of contradict eachother. For now im basing my tagging on a perception of what the user seems to be trying. If a user tries to add a spam article that might only skim across G11 then it receives a speedy tag. If a users first edit is an article is a bad one with good intentions i prod it. But alas, since i only started trying that tactic recently, i make mistakes assuming to much good faith, as witnessed two posts above. With some luck this is just temporally, but ifi run into to much wrong assumptions of good faith ill just tag stricter again :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)09:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Talk:/Karl Rawer
What are you trying to do with Talk:/Karl Rawer it seems to be a reduced content dup of Karl Rawer. It would make sense to me to just delete, is the history worth preserving? It does not look so to me. I will just delete it, and let me know if you want anything different. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The page was created by another user, presumably to end up at Talk:Karl Rawer. I copied it over (Instead of moving the page) to the talk page of the article you mentioned and tagged the misspelled article for housekeeping. I am not sure what the user intended with it - i assume that he/she wanted to utilize the talk page to develop the article. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought i should let you know that i copied over a comment you made on this AFD to a relevant SSP case as evidence supplied by other users. It was a perceptive comment indicating that the user is indeed a likely vandal. I hope you won't mind that i did not ask in advantage for permission for this copyover.
Heh! No worries! As hoaxes go, I thought it was fairly blatant. "Yu tust gud" reminded me of a haka in bro'Town: off-hand it sounds legit, but when you listen closely you realise the performer is singing in English and is discussing "the bus service that runs to Whenuapai".
Well, in retrospect its rather blatant, but when i first tagged it i only saw that "Yu tust gud" along with that weird Jimbo Lampa name (First thought: Jimbo Wales?). The page is just an edited mash up of several articles. Brussel sprouts called (pèpper bukas)? And farata edited to resemble farta? Lovely how he went in with that IP to try and protect the article though. Instead of protecting it he pointed us to a nice cache of proof and vandalism edits :)
Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)helo excirial i am surry to be disturbance, i thought wikipedia place for people to make own articles?? maybe i am wrong and then i am sorry to create disturbance. is there article on how to create article easily?
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where people can contribute articles to as long as they are within the policy guidelines. Your article was a mixup of several other articles and has therefore been labeled as a hoax and been deleted. An aeticle must about a be notable subject that has not been imagined in one day. Also the article has to be sourced with Reliable third party sources. A guide for creating an article can be found here.
I wanted to let you know that i replaced the CSD template you declined on the Radhand with the comment that the template did not apply. I assume you removed the template because products are not explicitely named in the template text.
However, under the WP:PRODUCT guideline, all products should be included into the company's main article unless they received sufficient coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. In this case we are talking about a foam finger that did not receive any coverage - unless you would count the student organisation the article mentions as coverage (Which is of course no coverage - we could add every item for having been on TV that way).
If i overlooked or misunderstood your reasoning, please let me know :)
You seem to understand! A7 applies to people, organisations and web sites (includes music groups). Other possible reasons to remove this sort of thing are spam or copyvio. A prod would probably do for this, see if someone want to keep it. It soundede exciting enough for me not to speedy delete it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, the annoyance of the precise wording of that policy. While that field guide is of course correct in theory, it will in practice lead to instruction creep (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY / WP:IAR). The problem is that if a user writes an article about a product, a piece of furniture in their homes or even a pet it would technically not fall under the guideline. This would mean a PROD or AFD has to be used instead. An AFD for each of those articles would often waste the time of wikipedia editors, while a prod is prone to removal (Which means having to keep track of them so that in case they get removed, an AFD has to be started).
For the above reasons most of the administrators delete these pages under A7 anyway (Jokingly called Rouge admins). A more policy based reason for that is the snowball clause that states you should not go trough procedure if the outcome is virtually guaranteed. So if a user makes an article about a pet, it will get an A7 as it has a snowballs chance in hell to survive an AFD or PROD.
As for the article, it seems like i will have to (Sorry to put it this way) waste fellow editors time now with an AFD which will virtually certainly end in a procedural or speedy close with end result delete. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, i love participating in AFD's myself, but i deem that there is a difference between a deletion discussion that debates an article (i love those!) and an AFD that will just be a pile of votes for either side. As WP:WIARM puts it so beautifully: Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit. Going trough a lengthy AFD just because it’s a policy is a waste of time if the outcome is virtually certain.
Don’t get me wrong – this is not meant as an insult or an assumption of incompetence towards you or anything like that. My main point is that we need the rules as a guidance, not as an absolute truth. If a vandal is mass creating vandalism pages the account gets blocked, even if someone did not add the (Trough rules) required vandalism warnings first.
Apologies for being so fanatical about this, but I saw first hand what following the rules for the sake of following the rules can do. A rather amusing story about a company where I would have to fill in several forms to install a flash player update I actually needed for my work. I will save you the details, but trust me: After spending two days waiting for that approval procedure I am rather… well… It will affect your opinion about the way policies and guidelines should be employed Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see obvious CSD does not cover but should AFD's as a waste my of time. See comment below. Coulda gone prod, though. Cheers, Dlohcierekim
Well, trying to G11(Or even replace A7) because an A7 falls outside the guideline does sometimes work if you have the luck a regular CSD admin handles it, provided it is an obvious WP:SNOW article. Still it would not really fall in the G11 category so i would just let it run trough AFD.
As for prodding the article: PROD's can be removed at any time without breaking any rules. Seeing that, combined with my amount of edits in a week, i would have to be backtracing every prod i make a week after a placed it to see what happened to it. Normally no problem, but since this is a recreated spam article without the spam it is likely to be opposed - hence the AFD. With some luck it receives a speedy close though :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I often check back if article have been removed or improved, up to a week after they were removed. For some i can even remember the specifics.
The three adamson articles were Copyvio's / promotional if i remember well, with one editor adding a mass of different articles for every facility of the university. I thought the numbers were around 10 though - i remember seeing part of them cleaned up to stubbies. Seems the rest did not get cleaned. To bad, the stubbies are ok, but back then i didn't have the time to .
Lone Dröscher Nielsen. Seems this one has been rewritten. The first version was dully unsourced, and was not about the subject in question, but rather about the Borneo Orangutan Survival with only 1 line about the article subject.
Los (band), Max Pokrovsky, NeverShoutNever!, Arjun Bijlani Can't remember these specifically. Likely these had no indications of notability in their previous versions. Also possible that it was a fan made article about a band - happends enough times :)
As for the others: No clue - several among many articles i tagged.
As for their quality, i see no reason to CSD / AFD or PROD any of them. Most of them are correctly sourced, i see no promotional language, and the few articles without sources are stubs which is ok. Glad to see some of them are back in good quality though. The gross remains permanently removed, but i really prefer seeing an article return with good quality, then a bad quality article that stays gone forever.Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
What can i say about this?
I'm deeply sorry for my sisters ignorance towards Wikipedia. She was editing all that info. Again I am oh so deeply sorry for those unfortunate remarks and I PROMISE it won't happen again. If it happens again I give you permission to ban me b/c it won't happen again i promise okay? does that sound like a good deal. one more time.... i'm so so so so sorry for my sisters actions. i will go punish her now and tell her to never do it again. again... i'm sorry. please forgive me and my sisters actions. do you forgive me? thanks if you do. and if you don't forgive me please tell me why and i will fix it i promise. again, i'm so sorry. it will never happen again. i apologize. take care EXCIRIAL! i'm happy you are taking care of your awesome site! again i'm sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nipnipnip (talk • contribs) 17:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
did you get my last message? i really hope you did b/c im sooooooo sorry. it will never happen again. i want to punish my sister severely right now, but that is illegal so i won't. again sorry and let me know if you get these messages. thanks again. thank you!
In all honesty i don't really mind who does the vandalism - as long as it stops i am happy with it :). Also, need need to apologize like that; Vandalism is taken care of very efficiently around here, and no permanent harm was done. Again, if its stops, its A-OK. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
well thank you! i'm so happpppppy ur okay with it and it is behind us. i'm going to tell my sister she can sleep in my room again tonight b/c i told her she cudnt b/c she messed up BIIIIIIGGGGG time on this awesome site. again im sorry. so so so sorry. super sorry. thanks for the acceptance though. and i apologize for my newbish language b/c im bad at typing really fast for various reasons including but not limited to turrets and down syndrome. my mommy told me to not use the world wide web without permission b/c of all the pwned porn. i apologize. thankkkkkkkkkkkkks again for your deep condoleces towars my sisters idiotic and retarded actions. take care sweet heart!
Oh, don't worry about it so much :). Wikipedia receives about 160 edits a minute, of which 15 or so are vandalism attempts. In total that means that there are around 20.000 counts of vandalism every day, day in, day out. And believe me, most vandals don't apologize but rather start a swearing session before gattinga banned. So believe me, i have had worse. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I just got a message saying "[edit]May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Ramblin' Wreck, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Ramblin' Wreck was changed by Nipnipnip (u) (t) replacing entire content with something else on 2009-05-15T16:59:51+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
what does all the gibb'rish mean? is it like a poem or bot robot charzzard thing?
