I hope you don't think I was trying to be rude. I was just saying if you give these articles a chance, maybe even if they don't exactly meet criteria, they can grow with love into massively in-depth and successful pages like Born This Way. PinkFunhouse13 (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC
I was wondering if you could evaluate MY version of the the page for Artpop which is at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Artpop. I see that you keep redirecting it, which I understand because those articles were sub par, but I truly believe my article is worthy of the mainspace. Its fully sourced with NO speculation. Just to add some validity, I created the article for Born This Way (you can check it's first entry) while the same thing was happening with it. People created close to six different versions of the article, until I finally created an article worthy of the mainspace. Thanks. PinkFunhouse13 (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Artpop (NEW)
Well I'm back with a new username! :P Its been almost 2 months now and my page for ARTPOP has been grown expanded and edited. Its ridiculously extensive and I think the best candidate out there to be ARTPOP's mainspace page. I know you cite several Wikipedia guidelines as reason for this page not to exist, but several upcoming album's articles that have no tracklisting or release date exist (i.e. Native (album), Backstreet Boys' eighth studio album, etc.) This page has been incessantly edited by fans and I've been constantly reverting or changing their edits for while now. Please move the page to the mainspace for protection, and to allow better growth. Please give it a chance like everybody did for Born This Way (album). Now its a very notable article because the rules were broken to allow it to exist. Remember, sometimes the rules were meant to broken! Thanks! :) ARTPOPist (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated both of those examples for deletion. I actually do believe in applying policies and guidelines uniformly, and I strongly uphold WP:CRYSTAL. There will be plenty of time to write about Artpop when it actually exists, and there's no race to be first.—Kww(talk) 03:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Carly Rae Jepsen Discography
What comment? And why are the certifications being taken away? They all have citations. And why is the album being changed to "Curiosity and Kiss" Curiosity was just an extended play, all the songs are from the album, I don't see other discographies having the format "x and x" under albums.
Carly Rae Jepsen Discography
Well, How can I make it work out? The Japanese source posts the numbers weekly, but once next weeks chart is posted, they remove the numbers from the previous week. I'm just adding it up and it's 73,000. As for US, 46,000 is first week sales. Totals leaked and it's 82,000, as seen on post#16 on this page: http://atrl.net/forums/showthread.php?t=286752 Am I able to use this info and cite it? Because now the information is invalid and it would be better to completely remove the sales than leave it this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamil24 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to be on Wikipedia for the time required to do the reviews I have picked (real life situations making time a problem for now). No review was actually started, but I opened the GA review page and do not know how to reverse this. Could you assist of help me locate someone that can remove me from the following reviews to open them up for others to take: Talk:Jon Huntsman, Jr./GA1, Talk:Star Trek/GA1, Talk:Show_Boat/GA1. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Dewan357 is a prolific sockpuppeteer. Has been for years. I agree that some of his edits are useful, but I have always, and will always, revert anything he does that isn't a vandalism reversion. If you see that I have accidentally restored vandalism, feel free to undo my reversion.—Kww(talk) 00:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:KWW has a personal vendetta against me. As you can see form his history that he has abused his administrative powers by giving people excessive blocks. As you can see from my edits that Much of my edits have been of good faith. User:KWW has no sense of professionalism. Please go through my edits and you will see that I have contributed with good faith, User:KWW has abused his powers. Please take this up with the Arbitraion committee and look into my case, as well as User: KWW. He is in deep violation of his powers. Personal vendetta has no place in wikipedia and especially Admin abuse/trolling. (174.226.194.202 (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Which is evidence for my basic thesis: if you spend a lot of time investigating his edits, you are ding exactly what he wants you to do.—Kww(talk) 01:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
174.255.113.212: You are wasting your time. Editors may accept your edits, but they may also revert and block you on sight - you can't claim any justice by evading blocks. Materialscientist (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no love for the sock, but there is no point in reverting all their edits. It's only an invitation for them to return. I may go through the list, and I may use rollback to revert what I think are useful edits. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know you generally keep a pretty close eye on the Temple garment article, but three brand new users keep adding content about a commercial site selling replicas of garments. This section has become almost an advertisement for the company, and it looks like these three accounts (User:Dholsing, User:Mormonrod, and User:Ivypr, probably along with IP 75.72.207.229), are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Please take a look. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the OR that I added. I found a reference and added that members can even make their own currently under the direction of their local leaders. Thanks for the friendly reminder. Not too often I forget that one. Regards, --Manway02:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, your contributions look like you are reverting every single edit M.Sunshine made before you indeffed him as a sockpuppet of Chace Watson. It doesn't look like you ever filed an SPI on M.Sunshine to confirm your suspicion, but even assuming you're right, it appears that you have deemed Watson as de facto banned and have been reverting all of the account's edits, regardless of whether they need to be reverted. Some of the reversions are to articles on my watchlist (which is how this came to my attention). In many instances, the Sunshine edit was a good one. In at least one instance, your reversion damaged the article (that's the only one I reverted back).
As you probably already know from the previous discussion about Dewan357, I don't agree with your interpetation of policy or your actions, but, honestly, putting our disagreement aside, why do you feel so strongly that you need to do this? How does it help Wikipedia?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Several reasons:
Sockpuppeting is the single most destructive problem on Wikipedia. There is no worse behaviour.
Without enforcement, blocks and bans are meaningless. Our technical means are inadequate, and it is every admin's obligation to enforce blocks.
There's essentially no such thing as a block evading edit that "doesn't need to be reverted". With Chace Watson, I have to step more carefully around BLP problems, because he tends to edit BLPs, but aside from that, his edits need to be removed.
Despite the implications of your comment, I have no need to open an SPI report for every detected sock. SPI is a method for users to seek an admin's help, or for admins to seek a checkuser's help. If I detect a sock and block him, all that I am obligated to do is tag him. And Chace Watson is de-facto banned. It's recently become fashionable for some admins to deny the existence of de-facto bans, but de-facto bans have been the predominant banning technique since before I became an admin. No sane admin would unblock someone with that history of sockpuppeting, copyright violations, and active deceit. He's indefinitely blocked for misbehaviour for multiple years on multiple projects, and de-facto banned here and on commons.
If you really need a written rule to make you feel better about my behaviour, see WP:BAN#Difference between bans and blocks where, for the situations that it is appropriate to undo edits by indefinitely-blocked editors, it states "Edits by the editor or on his behalf may be reverted without question (exceptions), and any pages that have been created by the editor where he is the only substantial contributor may be speedily deleted under CSD#G5." for contents created during the block. Since Chace Watson is indefinitely blocked, my reverts are entirely appropriate.
If you have serious questions about exactly why I know this is Chace Watson, we'll need to take that up via e-mail. I have no reason to publicly display to a block-evader exactly how I know it's him.—Kww(talk) 01:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One additional point: I don't mass-revert unless I am 100% certain about the socking. In history, I have been found to be wrong about the socking precisely twice after I undertook mass-reversion, and, in both cass, I both apologized and took the several hours necessary to completely restore all the edits.—Kww(talk) 02:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A broader discussion than one between you and me might benefit from a detailed policy discussion, but that wasn't really my objective in coming here. For the purpose of our discussion only, let's assume you have the right to determine without an SPI that an editor is a sock. Let's also assume that based on your determination you have the right to indef the account. Finally, let's assume that you have the right to act as if the editor is de facto banned. With these assumptions in mind, how do think it helps Wikipedia to revert edits by the sock simply because you "can"? The policy says: "This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." In other words, you have some discretion about which edits to revert. Other than the ones you shouldn't revert for policy reasons ("exceptions"), are you evaluating the substance of the sock's edit? Are you checking (as in the case of Ryan Reynolds) what your reversion does to the article? We can wikilawyer this to death - and some wikilawyering may even be appropriate - but shouldn't the quality of the articles matter just as much as the "broader problems" mentioned in the policy?
Again, the policy issues are debatable, but I'm trying to approach our conversation from a more commonsense perspective. I get the impression that your hatred of sockpuppetry (understandable) may cause you to act in an extreme manner and, as admins, we are supposed to be cooler and, when appropriate, more nuanced in our interpretation and application of policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because the only thing that will ever dissuade a sockpuppeteer is the knowledge that none of his edits will survive, and a mindless consistency is the only way to achieve that. That is precisely the reason that the policy emphasises that the ban applies to all edits, both good and bad. Evaluating each of the edits individually and determining whether they are "good" or not is what we are supposed to do with all editors: it's standard treatment. To perform such evaluation on a blocked editor means that you are not making any distinction, and are not taking any steps to enforce the block. None of these sockpuppeteers has any special knowledge: any beneficial change they make will eventually have an equivalent change made by a legitimate editor.
The problem is made far, far worse by editors that attempt to examine each edit. For example, treating Dewan357 as you have has done more to encourage him to continue evading his block than anything else you could have done. He's been encouraged similarly in the past, and that's the primary reason he continues. It's clear that at this point he blames his block on me, rather than himself, and doesn't even take into account that I wasn't even an admin when he and his first group of socks was blocked.
The point of the reversion is to return Wikipedia as nearly as possible to the state as if the illegitimate edits had never been made at all. That's the goal: to completely nullify the impact of the editor. Without that manual enforcement, our blocks are meaningless, as they usually don't require anything more dramatic than resetting a cable modem and creating a new account to bypass.
The quality of individual articles is actually fairly meaningless in the broad scope. We have over 4 million of the things. A temporary degradation of a small number can't be reasonable held to be significantly damaging to the product.
As for checking, I do check for vandalism and for BLP problems. I didn't undo about 20% of M.Sunshine's edits because of BLP issues, and had to retroactively undo a couple of my rollbacks because of vandalism issues. I don't worry about restoring an article back to the previous state if that previous state simply wasn't as nice as it's current one (including formatting problems). That's not my concern, and shouldn't be yours.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to explain your position. At this point, you've addressed the questions I've raised. Whether I agree with you is a different issue, but at least you're clear. One correction: I didn't treat Dewan357 in any way. I expressed opinions on your treatment, but I've never, to my knowledge, touched any of his edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. It seems that User:Cathartica does not want to discuss this issue. If he does not want to discuss then he does not have a leg to stand on. Furthermore, It seems that you personally have had dealings with him in the past as per his talk page, in which you have told him not to add Billboard Bubbling Under charts as an extension of the Billboard Hot 100. Also there are other users on his talk page who have told him not to add the Belgian Ultratip/Tip chart as an extension of the Belgian Ultratop singles chart, as it isn't. So he is effectively adding false information to discography pages and appears to be doing this repeatedly despite being told it is incorrect. Thanks. QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kww... I'm a huge fan of Rico Blanco.. And I'm just wondering why you removed the chart peak of his single Amats.. Myx is actually a music channel here in my country and people here tune in to the charts published or released by Myx.. We don't have an official charts here like Billboard Hot 100 or UK Singles Chart so the best source would have to be Myx because they based their data on music requests by fans through phone calls, texts and online voting... Thanks Alcohkid (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually figured you would know more about this, since you are an administrator. Here at Elizabeth II we are facing a sort of edit war on how certain lines of Elizabeth's biography should be written. Originally, the article read, "Elizabeth's only sibling, Princess Margaret, was born in 1930." BUT I changed it to, "Elizabeth had a sister, Princess Margaret, who was four years younger." Another editor stated that the former was necessary because readers would need clarification she had no other siblings. See User_talk:DrKiernan#Queen_Elizabeth.27s_sister; I left several messages but the editor failed to respond. Spelling Style (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you chose to modify Betelguese with this. If you read the article Bow shock (referenced in the sentence you modified), you will see that there is indeed a characterization as "supersonic" in interstellar plasma. I reverted the edit (notice it's in a section titled with "supersonic"). Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unsupported information
I added the source on the main album (The Spirit Indestructible) page for the Canadian charts. I don't see sources for the other chart positions on that page, I assumed adding the source on the album page was enough to list the chart position on the discography page. You just added the source I put on the album page anyways. Threats are unnecessary. Evilperson 20 (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stranded Pirate has been busy editing with his 20+ socks. too bad you can't track him down cuz ur a loser. Kww i hope u get murdered and then ass sodomized by a clown as ur body gets ground up into tiny bits and then someone poops on those tiny bits. anyways, the Pirate is off to create more trouble with his socks on his DoD proxy network. u've been pwned sucker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.84.137 (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never ending uploading of fanmade covers
Hey Kevin. I've seen this way too many times now, and it is getting out of hands. Users keep uploading fanmade covers to song articles. Do you think a warning could be set up for dealing with this? It's getting out of control. Zac16:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it would be completely useless and ignored. If you are having problems with specific users doing it after warnings, let me know.—Kww(talk) 17:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops
Hi Kww. I was so proud of finding where I had messed up the first time that I didn't check to see that you had already fixed things. Sorry for the extra work and thanks for all the fixes. MarnetteD | Talk21:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Pat Paulsen campaign speech.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Pat Paulsen campaign speech.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Template talk:Singlechart. Message added 03:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Kevin, could you please look at this topic on my talk page? You're the last admin to block Zhoban, and you did it for abusing multiple accounts. Besides, you know more about sockpuppets than I do. I'm not even sure why Sjones came to my talk page except that he knows me. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's cute that the pages are on your watchlist but tell me something. Do you see Midhat Mursi's photo on the Rewards for Justice page? Last time I checked, dead people were not wanted fugitivies.
Khalid al-Fawwaz is no longer being held in the United Kingdom. He was extradited to the United States earlier this month. Stop saying that he's still in the United Kingdom.
I don't think either should have an article. "What If" didn't even have a working source for its chart claim. Since Overrated did, I left it alone, even though I do not think it should have an article.—Kww(talk) 20:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI
Hello Kww.
You might also be interested in knowing that I suspect that THIS>>> 2001:558:6026:97:30EC:B4C5:AF59:B9E1 anonymous IP, may also be the same blocked sockpuperteer known as User:Fragments of Jade (See his additions HERE and then see his deletion edits HERE), seemingly seeking the help of a registered and autoconfirmed user (that is, myself) to geeting his reverted edits reinstated.
Also, see HERE how the users (Zhoban, Memorex1987, and Damacyboy) all suddenly seem very interested in an article that is relatively obscure to the public at large (that is, Avelino González-Claudio).
Also, the anonymous IP user 77.75.120.108, which you reverted HERE possibly because he was a sockpuppet of Jade, made the edit summary comment ("You're a fucking idiot. Read the fucking website. He's still imprisoned. Ask Mercy11 if you don't believe me") here >>> HERE which is quite along the behavioral lines of comments made by a previous anonymous IP editor (70.126.139.249 and 70.127.202.197, etc.) - see HERE, and more specifically HERE and HERE for specific examples of such similar uncivil and abusive language in the edit summaries by what appears to be the same real user. Both articles (Avelino González-Claudio and Oscar López Rivera) are about Puerto Rican political independence activist prisoners.
You said the song is not a notable song because there are "no charts, no covers, no awards", but it does have a cover. So the article must be keeped, and not to redirect to the parent album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvinariels (talk • contribs) 17:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kww, I've seen you revert at this article before and am coming to you about RC1995 because there needs to be administrative action taken against this editor. I've warned the editor about adding unsourced material, and this includes the addition of a final warning, but he or she very recently added unsourced material to the article again.
Dealing with these types of editors who never reply and never seem to fully comprehend or even try to fully comprehend Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very frustrating. This editor has also added unsourced material to other Wikipedia articles. Flyer22 (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sharon Stone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Last Dance (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Have you abandoned the GradyEdwardLoy account? I can't see any reason for you to be using both accounts.—Kww(talk) 23:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I was not aware I was using more than one. It may be that I inadvertenly signed up again after not signing in for a long time. I am happy to abandon one if that does not create any problems.11:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)15:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GradyELoy (talk • contribs)
Hello Kww. I think S came here on my recommendation since you had dealt with the last few reports here. I don't know that either of us have come across any new IPs in the last several hours. I think that S is expressing the hope that there would be some way of detecting and blocking any new IPs that show up (my apologies for putting any words in your mouth S) without our having to do anything but I know that can be difficult. I was expressing to him that you might be able to help in the event that you are online the next time Pe strikes - its been going on for at least 3 years so there "will" inevitably be a next time. We are all just Sisyphus in dealing with this so I will express my thanks for all that you have done. MarnetteD | Talk23:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I know that S didn't make this post until after I mentioned your name in my post to him at the "Many Thanks" thread that you have also posted at on his talk page. I think something got confused in the intervals between the three of us being onwiki. Many apologies. I'll let you know if anything new occurs. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk00:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unusual plays
re: [5] while the source about the death doesnt call it unusual, the added bit about the play has a source that describes the events the play is based on as unusual or bizarre or something similar. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom15:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring on List of unusual deaths
Hello, I'm 172.163.86.195. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.
Hello, I'm 172.163.86.195. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you removed topically-relevant content from a Wikipedia article. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.86.195 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are you going to do when the locks on your watchlist articles expires in January?
Continue to watch and revert edits on the pages in silence until the end of time? ;)
You can't win, old man. Your policy is retarded. Revert perfectly sourced information (Said Shihri released an audiotape confirming his survival last September) and allow articles to be totally outdated. When the lock expires, I'll just revert your edits. Thank goodness, a couple of administrators had the brains to revert a few of your reverts. You need to get a life. Big time. ;)
Give up, old man. I know more about computers than you ever will in your pathetic life. Each time you block one IP, I'll come back with another one. Of course the chances of more than one person from New Jersey editing Wikipedia is completely remote. The editor must be Fragments of Jade. <sarcasm> I feel sorry for your wife and children. They have a moronic pathetic excuse for a father/husband. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.31.89 (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey, shit for brains. Is that the best you can do? LOL![reply]
Kww, what's the difference between the Ultratop and Ultratip charts of Belgium? Would appreciate your help please. Till11:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the guideline says, and I don't care for your personal opinion. There was a reason why I linked that, and when I spoke to an admin who did the same thing on another page (thinking I was just asking something in a wrong way), he said, "Oops! Never mind!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.93.72.184 (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have access to the deleted content? the event is about to happen and the article probably will pass all wikipedia requirements or there's also the merge possibility. I would like to keep it on my sandbox if possible. Poison Whiskey (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to believe that UFC 155 will ever be eligible for a standalone article. The content would only be suitable for some sort of large list article (like 2012 in UFC events), but all of those seem to have been deleted. You'd have to demonstrate that you had a logical target for the content.—Kww(talk) 02:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds ridiculous. We've had articles on individual UFC events for a long time, and suddenly some of the biggest events of the year will never be eligible for standalone articles? The list articles were deleted because they were sloppy, ugly, and more difficult to navigate or edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byuusetsu (talk • contribs) 13:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 144 the same way I closed this one. There's no reason to make creating these articles more convenient. Snottywong made a fairly common error in closing that AFD, in that he treated the GNG as meaning an article was required. It doesn't: meeting the GNG simply means that it's possible to have an article, not that it's necessary, and the arguments based on WP:NOT are far stronger.—Kww(talk) 02:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The closing statment "it appears that the "keep" side of this debate wishes to have this sport treated substantially different from all other similar endeavours" is entirely incorrect. MMA, and UFC entries in particular are above par in context of sporting event articles on wiki (which exist for pretty much any sort of popular sport), and their format is the norm for the field. This is was covered more times than can be counted in same prior deletions in this area over the course of the last year and it's quite unfortunate that someone who's apparently unfamiliar with what's going on is yet again targeting MMA for special treatment. Agent00f (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it seems likely that facts or reason or anything of that sort won't be helpful here, these are but a few examples of how sports event content is typically created on wiki:
It's also notable that one of the "policies" noted, the Wall Garden, is only an essay and specially says "if you find several pages that only seem to link to each other". The web of MMA on wiki is in the area of 1K pages, far more than most sports, and thus this justification for deletion entire unfounded. Agent00f (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These events would appear to me more comparable to yesterday afternoon's University of Nebraska-Penn State game, which was mentioned this morning in every American newspaper, anticipated in every major newspaper, and covered in detail in numerous websites devoted to college football, University of Nebraska football and Penn State football. Yet, no article has been (or should be) created on that topic.—Kww(talk) 22:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unfair to compare to events that apparently no one cared enough to create an entry for in the first place. This is rather opposite to the situation here. I'm comparing to pretty much any of the tens of thousands of sporting events which already have entries, and the UFC/MMA ones compared quite favorably here. Though OTOH I supposed you could feel that all tens of the thousands should be deleted. Also note that this isn't even specific to sports, as there are perhaps order of magnitude more 15-min of fame flash in the pan TV shows or whatnot. The constitution/division of lists (and how it makes zero sense to require long unwieldy 1MB pages for an apparent bureaucratic formatting requirement) was also covered with this discussion.
We could also go into the specifics of why the UFC events are not akin to one football game, but this has already been covered ad nauseum by dozens of editors over the past year. Again, all that really could be said here is that it really helps when people making decisions are familiar with what they're deciding on. Agent00f (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, I reviewed the previous AFD's on UFC related topics. I could only shake my head in amazement that so many were kept in the face of such fatally flawed arguments.—Kww(talk) 23:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, facts or reasoning relies more on arguments (eg those presented above) rather than "believe me". This seems to be following the same path as the previous drama where there's an over-reliance on authority over merit, which only paints wiki in a bad light. Agent00f (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Kww: if multiple admins ultimately disagreed with you after a truly titanic year-long struggle, perhaps you should reexamine the criteria. Beyond notability, the fifth pillar argument overwhelmingly applies here. These pages were both extremely functional and popular and you yourself have conceded that notability guidelines are met. Considering that there are literally hundreds of editors that have been involved in this fight, you absolutely need to give a more elaborate justification for why you would overturn the policy result of an entire year's worth of edit wars. Every single one of your arguments has already come up and been addressed repeatedly at one point or another. Over 1000 pages does not constitute a walled garden. Comparing an entire card worth of fights with ramifications across multiple weight divisions to a single football game is again very flawed. You deleted an incredibly stacked card with near-term title ramifications in multiple weight divisions that was headlined by a Heavyweight World Title fight. It's practically like deleting a Stanley Cup Finals article. Beansy (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it always amazes me how people compare a UFC card to a single football game. The comparison should be between a single fight from a UFC card and a football match. Nobody will create a page for a single fight, though a page for a whole event is perfectly feasible. Contrary to what Kww says, dozens of sports have pages for events that could be considered analogous to UFC events. It is also amazing how a card which has a World Title Fight lacks notability. If Kww thinks that UFC 155 lacks notability, he should go on and delete all UFC events. Evenfiel (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's keeping in tradition that once the facts and reasoning started flowing here, the replies stopped. To maintain any sort of consistency across wiki sports entries, Kww needs to delete the vast majority of them. Likewise the majority of TV episodes or other serials. This is the reason why I previously asked for these AfD's to be attended by admin familiar with the field to some degree, but alas the comedy continues. Agent00f (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for being away from my keyboard for 12 hours, Agent00f. Yes, if any other UFC events have similar AFDs with similar facts, I will delete them as well. No, being a UFC event is not a speedy deletion category, so I will not go delete them autonomously, only after they go through AFD.—Kww(talk) 03:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to common belief, doubling down on decisions made via authority doesn't make them any more reasoned or informed. If the facts mentioned exist, then surely they would be presented as others here have rather than only implied. However, I do appreciate the honesty that the UFC specifically out of all sports or orgs is being called out. Agent00f (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty strange misreading of what I wrote. It's the policies and guidelines about article content vs. the facts and sources presented related to the UFC events discussed that drove the deletions. If another similarly situated sporting event went for AFD, it would be deleted, and if a UFC event with some substantially different set of facts (or a radical change in keep arguments pertaining to it), the article about a UFC event would be retained.—Kww(talk) 03:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if the facts are so clear, then it would be trivial to explain them in the face of the various specific arguments above. In addition, numerous quality sources (eg. USA Today, etc) above and beyond the norm for sports coverage on wiki were presented. All of this was dismissed out of hand as readily evident by the generic uninformative nature of the replies. Surely wiki would like to see better quality of judgement than "I say so". Agent00f (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting incredibly frustrating. I really cannot comprehend the idea that no UFC event would be notable enough for its own page, considering notability standards which have been applied to thousands of other pages. Will consider taking this to dispute resolution. Byuusetsu (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The continuing erosion of wikipedia, acting in detriment to the ideals of this site to accumulate edits for who knows what reason. Do you feel a sense of power in this or are you just a miserable human being? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.242.141 (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, if you would like to leave comments which concern you or would cast a vote in support or opposition based on your findings, I would much appreciate it. The list has garnered several good (and resolved) reviews, but no votes have been cast. Thanks. AARON• TALK 12:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
can you tell me how did you protect Ghazl El Mahalla page .. I need to protect Al Ahly SC page from IP vandalism. I fix the page everyday.--Zo3a (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Al Ahly SC
thanks so much for caring
the page is attacked by too much IP vandalism some of them are random some of them are "Daily"
the daily ones are
changing the no. of championships from 123 to 124.. the proof that it's 123 is just a simple calculator the championships are stated in the section by numbers of each championship .. also the references of the championships section which is the club's homepage states that they're 122 championships as they didn't add the 2010-11 Super Cup.
and the second one is
changing the nationality of Dominique Da Silva from Mauritania to Senegal . He's both Mauritanian and Senegalese but he plays for Mauritania and here's my reference [9]
examples
Revision as of 09:58, 26 October 2012 by 188.55.107.114 (the same IP changes both the no. of championships and the nationality of Dominique Da Silva almost everyday it's very frustrating)
Revision as of 07:25, 26 October 2012 by 217.174.56.156
the other random ones
are like
Revision as of 09:22, 31 October 2012 by 41.129.88.201 where a new championship was added to the trophies.
Revision as of 01:55, 1 November 2012 by 65.92.234.70 where he changed the club manager and the Chairman names to his name and nickname probably.
Revision as of 07:24, 26 October 2012 by 217.174.56.156 where he added a strange name to the squad list you can check the squad list here [10]
if you could protect just for a little while that they just forget about the editing the page it would be great.
I understand your point, but there are a couple of things that I want to say:
The vandalism due to them being Disney stars has died down since their series ended and they stepped out of the limelight. The last protect before the current one was when their series was still airing, popular, and producing new episodes (and it was actually protected nearing the finale of the series, which I totally and completely understand). I also have the article on my watchlist and have seen the editing that has went on since the last protection expired.
I'm not advocating for complete unprotection. The event that led to the current onslaught of vandalism and subsequent protection (Cole deleting his Tumblr and some controversy/bitterness surrounding it from a lot of Tumblr users) is something that I feel would die down in WAY less than a year, the current duration of protection. Therefore, I was not advocating for unprotection but instead a change in the length of the protection.
Kww,thank you for telling me why you redricted the diary of a wimpy kid page. I'm actually a novice, so how could i understand?
(talk) 13;33,19 November 2012 (UTC)-Thegreatbull
IsAnybodyDown and "Magic Powers".
I never meant to say or imply that you did have or should have magic powers. :) I consider myself to be too involved on the IAD page to take any sort of admin action there myself, given I was the one who filed the AFD about it. But I can help enforce your BLP declaration by reverting. Assuming that you still feel that the names themselves need to be revdeled (which it appears that you do), then you'll need to take that step yourself, given my ineligibility to use admin powers there. But given all that, I'm not really sure why you think that I somehow said or implied that you should have "magical powers". Sorry, but that comment has me a little baffled.
On a couple of side notes, the names are both still visible in a few edits 11/14 and 11/15, where I reverted the names out, but did not revdel.
And going forward, how would you *like* me to handle cases like this where the names are added? Leave them? Revert them? Come here to your talk page to let you know they have been added? As I said, I consider myself too involved with the page to actually do the revdel myself, but short of that, if I see the names pop up again, what would you like me to do? - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this is over the top of 'personal attack'. As far as I am aware, I've done nothing wrong except try to edit an article - and removed some unref'd claims. Is all.
There is really, really no more to it, but he is continually attacking me, claiming I have some ulterior motive because I was blocked in the past or something.
I understand that you removed the PROD, but clearly you can see that this page needs to be deleted. There are no citations to verify any of the information, it's promotional in nature (the only link points to their MySpace page with "purchase" links all over it), the notability of the subject has not been established; they don't even have a website. If this page exists, anyone should be able to make their own band page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvador Calyso (talk • contribs) 22:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reductionist Attitude and the UFC
You cited in your argument to be on the next annual Arbitration Committee that with nearly 4 million articles in the English language Wikipedia, the focus should be on reduction and consolidation of materials. It is certainly true enough that Wikipedia has its fair share of frivolous articles that pop up from time. At the same time, expanding Wikipedia to cover the sum-total of relevant human knowledge requires an ever expanding database. The world certainly isn't getting simpler, so it's kind of confusing why you need to see consolidation and reduction not just in terms of reducing the outermost frivolities, but in tearing a hole through established sub-communities that have been doing just fine for years with self-regulating guidelines. Unlike the editor who has spear-headed the anti-UFC effort for over a year and seems to be fighting battles just to be an edit warrior, I do not believe you are acting in bad faith. However, what you want Wikipedia to be, and what the average person who uses and contributes it wants it to be, seem to be seriously at odds. Wikipedia's founder described it initially as "a social experiment" and while its form is a bit more crystalized than that today, Wikipedia still only exists insomuch as the manner in which it continues to attract editors and users.
Why you went along with targeting the MMA community in particular, apparently taking a top-down approach, is beyond me. Do you really think other admins were merely counting votes when deciding to keep UFC event articles? These are articles that are announced months in advance, receive coverage in mainstream journalism outlets when they do, and some of them are analyzed years down the road. Up until the deletion war there was an equal number of MMA articles in Portuguese, and a majority of UFC event articles in particular have counterparts in Portuguese, Japanese, and Italian. This is a global sport and events nowadays attract a global audience. They tend to be far better sourced than most similar sporting articles and better organized as well. Many of the newer ones have sources in a number of different languages. They generally meet the WP:NOT General Guidelines for Significant Coverage, Reliability, Secondary Sources, and Subject Independence, while having had an organized and self-regulating community for years. There are also over 1000 fighter biography pages, most of whose merit is determined by the events they fight on, yet you seem to think that those events themselves are not notable. The major events stay relevant because they generally chart the path of a fighter's career (since the UFC has exclusive contracts with 85% of the world's top MMA talent at any given time, it is inescapable that there are multiple significant fights on every card, and it's downright rare for a UFC fight to not have any measurable ramifications at all in its weight division). If you wish to trim the fat on sporting articles there are plenty of far, far better ways to do that and approve an AfD for one of the biggest events of the year across all combat sports. I'm sorry if MMA fans have been rude to you, but it is genuinely confusing that even within MMA, you would target the UFC specifically as opposed, to, oh, Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki events (Polish C-League with a couple of notable names but whose events are probably not even omnibus material). So, anyway, I know this is a wall of text, but I'd like you to consider your approach here. This has been a very, very, long, draconian struggle already and after what seemed like a fair resolution (one that did include some article consolidation or elimination for events from lower-tier promotions), things seem to be going in circles again. I hope you take a longer look at some things. Beansy (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kww -- per the eligibility criteria for the 2012 Arbitration Committee Elections, you need to include in your statement a disclosure of all prior and alternate accounts, or a statement that you have none.
Okay. A). You could have at least replied and explained your opinion to me, instead of just reverting. And, your not convinced? There is no difference. One is a perennial classic that has been a hit worldwide every year since 94', and has been covered by over 20+ notable artists. The other has no such accomplishment except a few low holiday chartings. If you're going to choose to handle it this way, I'll take it somewhere else...--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me01:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "just revert", I reverted and provided an explanation. There's no pressing reason to get rid of a perfectly good disambiguation page.—Kww(talk) 05:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saying your "not all that convinced" when its pretty fucking obvious is not an explanation. You're trying to roundabout something anyone with eyes can see...--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me01:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all obvious that the Vaughn song is so trivial and unimportant that it is unworthy of a disambiguation, and I remain unconvinced. You took over a perfectly good disambiguation page and destroyed the indexing system that would lead people to the Vaughn song.—Kww(talk) 01:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Get over yourself Kevin. I didn't ruin or destroy anything. When I was finished, readers were automatically sent to Carey's page, where the first line would offer the Vaughn version. So yeah, not really... Didn't ruin shit (that's how it was before by the way, if you even took care to look through it). And yes, by comparison the song is completely trivial and unknown. You just don't want to face it for some biased reason.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me01:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Status. That's exactly what I'm trying to explain. Unfortunately, it seems I'll have to go to another admin; one that actually still uses his tools...--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me21:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I missed the "Is You" on that one. Still, we have a pile of different things here with very similar titles, easily confused by readers. I don't think we are best served by getting rid of the disambiguations.—Kww(talk) 22:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well your dismissive attitude is difficult to deal with in a cheerful manner. As you don't quite understand the request, let's start over. Hi Kevin, some user with no consensus (sometime last year) created a disambiguation page for "All I Want for Christmas Is You". It looks like this. Now I'm asking you to revert what he did, and bring it to how it was before, with it automatically linking to the Carey song and leaving the hatnote for the Vaughn song as it was before. By the way, this request has nothing to do with All I Want for Christmas, which obviously has a lot of different titles. It's for All I Want for Christmas Is You, which is in a disemb page only because of the Vaughn song. As you can see, All I Want for Christmas Is You (Mariah Carey song) still has the hatnote for the Vaughn song: AKA, we don't need the disem page. So I want the disem page deleted and just redirected to the carey version, and to rename her version with just the song title (not "Mariah Carey song"). Thanks--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me22:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know your busy making Wikipedia as prosperous as possible but you could at least respond saying I don't know um "It doesn't concern me", "I don't care", "I'm busy at the moment", or perhaps "no need for my input". I know this is the internet but when people ask you something and you ignore their question/post its childish. Groetjes AdabowtheSecond20:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of times, I don't have much to say. I generally don't comment about areas I find completely uninteresting and might have to take administrative action in regard to.—Kww(talk) 23:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I noticed that UFC 155 is gone. Just curious to know what lead to that descision? That article is gone but many others still reside. There seems to have been the same reference on wiki for years and years and in the last 9 months it has become a problem. I dont understand. Now that the event is gone it ruins the chronological links in other events. It just seems silly as the event obviously is notable due to heavyweight title fight. Someone mentioned that it should be listed when there is academic journals for it etc. its not science or medical discovery or a pivotal political situation so its not covered by that type of document. It might not be any of those things, but it is currently the pinnacle of martial arts!
Regards josh 182.239.198.180 (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it was. Plenty of facts and reasoning one way, almost none the other, yet KWW saw fit to support the latter. This led to the questions here but no additional justification was provided other than maybe a statement of personal preference. Hardly a fitting background to the larger issue which surrounds ~1K MMA and ~100K sports articles. Agent00f (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maria has returned to the article Fantasy (Mariah Carey song), as well as others, utilising multiple IPs. If you check the history of the page until May 2012 and compare to other IPs and the zone they are, you will notice they are the same (86.186.34.8 (talk·contribs)). If you could protect the page(s) all these IPs have edited, or just Fantasy, it will be welcomed. Thank you. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions.18:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The IPs 217.xxx hae created an account, Accent1101 (talk·contribs) whose edits are similar to those of Maria, specially
Both accounts blocked. I wasn't certain before that they matched MariaJaydHicky, but I am certain that Accent1101 and Greg Bosher are the same, and am willing to bet that they are both just Maria returned.—Kww(talk) 16:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UK chart archive
Hi, how is the UK chart archive coming along? Have you managed to fix the problem? Sorry I didn't ask earlier, was blocked for a week. Till02:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it. I can't just change the expansion of template, I have to write a script that reads the existing articles, figures out where to find the data on the OCC site, and then replaces the template. I haven't done that before, so it's taking time. In the meantime, the actual peak position is still on the provided page, so I'm not in a huge rush.—Kww(talk) 03:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay then. Btw, when you get a chance can you build the albumchart template for the Czech Republic? Thanks. Till08:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ik weet dat je niet een fan ben van het Nederlands taal gebruiken op Engels Wiki maar ik schrijf nou liever Nls. Bedankt voor al je contributies aan Wikipedia! —AdabowtheSecond17:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A biased and poor choice by an admin to fulfill the crusade of Mtking to remove all MMA based articles that they possibly can. They've thrown every weak attempt in the book at deletions and you've been suckered into backing. Bad choices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.195.174 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 3 December 2012
I would like to propose UFC 155 for deletion review on a number of grounds, but the rules require me to speak with you first. Please let me know what steps I need to fulfill in order to move the issue forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.218.214 (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one would block a DRV on the basis that the deletion hasn't been discussed with me. No one has persuaded me yet that my close was improper, but I've certainly been made aware that a number of people disagree with my close.—Kww(talk) 20:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RFC about iTunes as a source for release histories
Hi. You speedy deleted this soon after the AfD opened as it was created by a sockpuppet, but I suggested a (imho) within-policy "weak keep" having found a few references. As the one article subject that was one step removed from Is Anybody Down? and hence having a fighting chance at being notable for something else, this was the one AfD in this group that I felt should have run for the week. Your thoughts? --Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query
Hi Kww. Can you help me with something? This thread dictates that the certifications listed on the official BPI websites for some Sugababes albums are incorrect, and contrasts the certifications listed in the book "Virgin Book of British Hit Albums". I have also seen various secondary online sources that support the claims from the book. Would appreciate your opinion on this, thanks. Till12:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to go through AFD. I sympathize, but the consensus on one talk page to reduce rather than split isn't a wide enough sampling for any responsible admin to feel comfortable deleting the result of the split.—Kww(talk) 22:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I have something I had a question I thought I'd hear from you on, since it's come to concern you over the past couple months. Are you sure Zhoban is Fragments of Jade? I haven't followed on the case for nearly a month now, but I've noticed that the I.P. addresses and sock puppets of Zhoban include taunts and their talk page messages include accusations of stalking, comments like, "aww", "cute" and "charming". Fragments of Jade never made edits like this and she was rather mild in her retorts and seemed to actually give somewhat of a damn about Wikipedia protocol. Is it possible that there are two people in New Jersey who happen to have edited a couple of the same pages? If so, I think it would be wise to split the investigation and categorization into two. DarthBottotalk•cont06:32, 05 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How cute of you to still have those pages on your watch list months later, old man. It's still pointless. I'll simply revert one edit a month when the lock expires in April. You're still an old loser. Botto is right. I'm not FOJ. Tell your wife I said hello. I'll see you in April. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.12.86.211 (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Template talk:Singlechart. Message added 12:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I figured it was something like that, but I didn't want to revert without knowing the details. I added the image back in manually as opposed to reverting. Same result but less it feels more appropriate somehow. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots20:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bad image use
On Kristen Stewart, you reverted an edit without explaining why, which doesn't really bother me. But the effect was to replace an image with one that doesn't exist, and to insert the person's signature contrary to several other editors' concerns. Please fix. DMacks (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"an intentional misreading of the criteria (the argument that "significant" could mean "detectable" or "noticeable" is bad to the point of undermining every argument Lexein makes, for example)."
is itself uncivil, abusive to me, and misrepresentational.
"intentional misreading" - this is astonishing. You falsify my intent and language. The nominator and the closer, and several endorsers equate "critically important" with "significantly increase understanding." That is intentional misreading. I'm the only one in the entire discussion defending the NFCC#8 language in its original form. "Significant" has never been defined in policy, nor was any discussion resulting in consensus about its precise meaning ever linked to. "Significant" has been a brickbat used to push an agenda opposing the calmer language of the policy itself.
"bad to the point of undermining" - no. That you reject my arguments due to an unwillingness to revert to a plain English reading of the policy is not any fault of mine. You make no defense of your position, but resort to uncivil, unsupported hyperbole: "bad". You pose no "reasonable man" argument, as you should.
You deliberately omit to mention that my entire point was that others were exaggerating and persistently misrepresenting the exact language of the NFCC#8. My point is that deletionist exaggerators should never be allowed to do so unchallenged.
I request that you strike the uncivil portions of your closing statement with <del></del> and amend it with <ins></ins>.
As an administrator, I expect you to pose better arguments, based on the actual meanings of words and policy, and better behavior in any case. --Lexein (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "intentional". Your reading of NFCC#8 goes counter to its intent, long-standing practice, and normal interpretation. I agree that your misinterpretation of the policy may be genuine instead of being feigned as a debating tactic, so I have rephrased.—Kww(talk) 04:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that much, but it does not represent me fairly. I do not, in good faith, believe that my reading goes counter to the stated wording or intent of NFCC, #8 included. In other words, I'm not being stupid about this. On the contrary, my reading is intended to restore the authors' intent. It was written carefully, it should be used with the same care and regard. The word "significant" is significant, and I think it has been institutionally misapplied by a powerful minority of editors bent on a particular, uncoded-in-policy-clarification, sub-definition of "significant", against the plain-English primary definition of "significant". This leads to my use of the phrase "thumb on scale" - exaggeration that imposes an unfair, out-of-policy tax. Ask yourself this: if the policy language is so clear, why do so many editors allegedly "misread" it, or "misunderstand" it? Why do so many editors think "significant" means "critical", which is so radically out of bounds that I'm duty-bound to point out that its meaning is so far from "critical" that it indeed approaches "noticeable" in meaning. And, gladly, I'm not the only one. There's nothing "bad" about trying to get a universally agreed-upon meaning of a word nailed down. I suppose an RFC might help.
I also think that if you understood my position better, your language at close would not have been so critical of me or my points. --Lexein (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that Lexein's reading of NFCC#8 was dead-on and true to the intent and normal interpretation of policy; and that the opposing views were not using the text in policy but some interpretations that were never consensual to begin with. The existing agreement between participants in the discussion indicates so. As of current practice, maybe this is what diverts from the consensus that was reflected in policy? Diego (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, sorry but that was a pretty bad close. You substituted your reading of NFCC#8 over that of the participants of the discussion. Yes, there is a long record of NFCC#8 being very broadly used (and I'd say abused). And yes, the closer should consider more than just the !vote count. But policy, as written, isn't so clear that you can ignore the voices that are reading it differently than you. In fact, those !voting to overturn were, as Lexein notes, much closer to what it actually _says_ and those who want a stronger bit of language there have not succeeded in getting it there. NFCC#8 requires judgement and is not a black and white issue. A closer of an FfD can't ignore reasonable voices on that issue, otherwise it's just a super vote. If nothing else, the procedural problems (closer closing against consesnous and largely refusing to explain) justified a relist even if NFCC#8 were black and white... Hobit (talk) 06:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't do that quickly, Hobit. I looked at the arguments for overturn, and looked at the arguments for endorsing. I went through and examined a decent sized sample of the target images and evaluated the arguments relevant to them. What I found was that very few of them were even borderline cases. I'd entertain discussion about File:Rake_Joke.png, for example, might actually be useful, but the overwhelming majority were used simply because the article creators wanted to have pictures in every article. It was a bad situation all around, but I think restoring that whole rack is the worse solution. Probably the best overall conclusion would be for people to set up a systematic review process of SchuminWeb's deletions.—Kww(talk) 15:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the closer thinks that one side is completely misreading a policy then he has a duty to give their views less weight. You can't change a policy during a deletion review. Mackensen(talk)15:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If one side is using the literal wording of policy in their arguments, and the other one is using criteria that are not included in policy, how is the first one the side that misreads policy? Diego (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If "a bulk overturn would be equally problematic", what do you propose as an alternative? Individual discussions for each image? You seem to agree that one single person creating connected discussions is not a good idea. That extends to the bulk closing of all related reviews, that shouldn't be closed by a single person. I suggest that you revert your closing of File:Andy checking phone on stage.jpg, File:Carride.jpg, File:Office scott's tots.jpg, File:The office grief counseling.png; and let an uninvolved editor close them (you became involved when you closed the mass deletion review). Otherwise your argument for endorsing the bulk nominations is undermined by your very own actions. Diego (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Individual discussions that focused on how the images clear WP:NFCC#8 (and yes, "significant" does not mean "critical", but the plain-language-English-definition of "significant" is also not merely "detectable"), and WP:NFCC#1, in which the proponent would have to demonstrate that the image cannot be replaced by a free, textual equivalent. Procedurally, I'll note that the NFCC#1 argument hasn't been explicitly made, but that's why the "decorative" argument is discouraged: it's a sloppy shorthand for "any information conveyed that would allow the image to pass WP:NFCC#8 is so trivial that it could easily be replaced by text, thus failing WP:NFCC#1." It doesn't surprise me that many people fall back on "it's decorative": much shorter, and doesn't look like gobbledygook.—Kww(talk) 15:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but how do you demonstrate that the image cannot be replaced by free text, other than with consensus of the editors reviewing it? The closing admin should not make that decision all by itself, given that it's usually pretty subjective. Thus the closure should be based on what the discussion concluded; "strength of policy" cannot be determined by one person alone with respect to WP:NFCC#1 (when replacing with text) and WP:NFCC#8. Diego (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that most of the original FFD noms had all of 3 editor's input - the nominator (for deletion) and two others wanting to keep, the closer has to make a decision based on that consensus, and given that we are talking policy, a strong policy argument made by one will outweigh non-policy arguments of many others. What should be pointed out is that most FFD are this sparsely discussed, some even closing without any other comment besides the nominator. We can't force people to respond to FFDs, and we do need to handle FFDs in a "default to delete" manner due to the non-free content approach, so most do go to deletion. So realistically, there is nothing different from how these SImpsons FFDs were closed compared to any other FFD, outside of SchuminWeb doing a large number at the same time. Kww's acknowledged that he's reviewed many and agree with Schumin's reading of consensus, but a few probably can be DRV'd to re-assess the consensus. Schumin still deserves a TROUT for false reads (I agree there are a few that if I had checked, I wouldn't have deleted even with the poorly-attended FFD that favored deletion), but Kww here is closing a difficult discussion in the manner that follows policy and creates the least amount of disruption, and certainly he should not be blamed for the original problem. --MASEM (t) 00:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't think that was a stellar close either. NFCC#8 isn't a question of fact to be determined by a sysop. It's a question of interpretation and degree to be determined by a consensus, but the DRV close denies that. Please consider inviting a second opinion.—S MarshallT/C22:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me stress again: most FFDs (Beyond these) are closed with minimum input from editors (1 or 2 + the nom), and regularly closers are making the final decision. That may be a problem with the notification of FFDs to the right channel, but that's not an issue with closing them; our NFC policy (and backed by the Foundation resolution) requires timed action on files that don't meet the NFCC. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the closer is "making the final decision" then it is DRV's role to see they are overturned. Closers are not elected to do that, and they don't have the authority to do it, in any area of XfD. Decisions at XfD are made by a consensus of participating editors, not by a sysop arrogating executive power to him- or herself.—S MarshallT/C16:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the closer isn't adding to it; they are to be evaluating what opinions are left -- including that of the nominator, in light of consensus and policy. If an xFD with a nom that cited appropriate policy, and 99 "keeps" that were all "but this is good to keep!" without policy arguments, the closer is completely in the right to, assuming the nom's application of policy is correct, close as delete. In most FFDs (not just the ones that are under this issue), you have 2 to 3 opinions: the nominator typically citing NFCC policy, and one or two others, maybe for deletion, maybe for keeping. So the same thing happens: the closer reviews the nom's policy-based argument, and if there's no other policy based argument to go against it (there rarely is), deletion is appropriate. All the files in question were basically that: koavf's original FFD nomination (citing NFCC#8) and two keeps by Maitch and Lexian both stating "'It's decorative' is not a reason to delete." (which is not based on any policy and is patently wrong because we never allow for decorative non-free images). Ergo, SchuminWeb's closure of the bulk of those is correct based on policy. Yes, even the ones being challenged now had little additional input. Kww's right to note that a limited number of these were probably mass-closed in haste or incorrectly by Schumin, but of the rest, which Kww's spot-checked, which I've spot checked, and I'm sure several others involved in these discussions have checked, the initial FFD was closed correctly given the nom's policy stated and properly reflects the consensus given, and how FFD normally works. If Koavf had nominated one image per day instead of 272 at the same time, and was processed through FFD at that rate, I am confident that we'd be at the same spot (most of those deleted, the few remaining having been shown to be properly meeting NFCC), and without the drama of the event, even though it took 30x times longer to get through the list. In other words, the least disruptive way out of this situation is to simply allow the limited number of images that had a better shot being kept should be re-reviewed in a DRV given the benefit of doubt, but there's no reason to doubt the rest followed all proper FFD/DRV close procedures. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the attitude at FFD then I'm not surprised that participation is low! You give your good faith opinion and the closer disregards it and does what policy says anyway? How ridiculous! There's no point having a discussion in such an environment. If what you say is true then we need to close down FFD. We might as well replace the whole discussion area with a simple and streamlined "sysop suggestion box" system. If that's what sysops are up to at FFD, then they need bringing back into line with normal practice in XFD discussions in the rest of the encyclopaedia.—S MarshallT/C20:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any exact number and only going by how I recall the rate of FFD to the rate of DRV, but I would argue that the number of FFD arguments that come up at DRV is at best 1% - in other words, the way FFD has been operating in the last several years has not been a problem. Mind you, the bulk of what gets to FFD is orphaned files and those are rarely challenged, so if I would have to guess how many FFDs that are not about orphans that end up at DRV, I'd still say that number is in the single digits. Remember, at some point, some admin is going to have to make a decision which way an FFD discussion falls; they can't be kept open forever. I won't be the first to argue that low participation at FFD is a problem with the notification system: presently I think only the original uploader is notified, which with WP's age, may not longer be active; I'd fully support requiring FFDs to include positing to the talk page of all articles affectd in addition to original uploader and the file page. But that doesn't change how they should close; if the nominator properly cites policy and no one refutes that no matter how many response, the close should go the way of deletion. Again, FFD - particularly with non-free - is nuanced by the fact that we are supposed to remove media that fails policy in a timely manner per the Foundation; articles like at AFD are not in the same position so in the same manner, "no consensus" is often better. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point having a discussion if the closer ignores it with impunity. If what you say is true, then FFD is a waste of valuable contributor time and should be shut down. DRV's job is, and has always been, to force sysops to close the discussion as it is, not the discussion as they think it should be. If SchuminWeb disagreed with the discussion then he simply shouldn't have closed it; he should have !voted instead. I'm afraid that there's no way to dress this up as an acceptable close.—S MarshallT/C01:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if one side presents policy-based arguments and the other side doesn't (and doesn't even try for an IAR argument), even if in overwhelming numbers, the closer is absolutely right to close with the policy-based argument. Also, for any xFD, the closer is going to have to evaluate the arguments provided, see how the arguments accurately apply to the policy and guidelines given, and make some type of subjective statement to which side is correct; in most cases (AFD, etc. where we're not talking non-free media) if there's even that type of decision, then "no consensus" is a better answer. I would argue that in FFD, as long as both sides are arguing with strong policy-based reasons, a "no consensus" is also appropriate, but in all other cases, due to the expected timeliness of NFC handling, the closer should close "keep" or "delete" with impunity based on the policy-based argument. DRV is never to have been to force sysops to close the discussion as is (That would make it xFD #2, which is it specifically not), but to review if there were any steps overlooked in the process of the xFD, if the closer misinterpreted any arguments corrects, or to challenge the closer's decision. Remember that DRV itself is a consensus-based process, and in the same manner, the close of the DRV has to come to some decision that may be novel (as KWW did here I believe) based on the strength of the arguments. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are two fundamental misunderstandings of discussion-based processes in that reply, Masem.
Firstly, you're saying that policy should overrule the local consensus. Although you do hedge that a bit by allowing for the possibility that the local consensus could "try for an IAR argument", it's still much too strong a view of policy's role in discussion processes. If policy always overruled the local consensus, then there would be no point in having a discussion. And it's even worse when we're talking about a policy that involves a subjective decision, like NFCC#8, because then what you're saying is that a sysop's interpretation of a policy overrules the local consensus.
Secondly, you're saying that a discussion close is a choice, but overruling the local consensus was not a choice available to the closer in that case. When faced with a contentious discussion, sysops only have three choices. Firstly, they can close the discussion in accordance with the consensus. Second, they can declare that there was no consensus. Or third, they can decide that the consensus is wrong or defective in some way, in which case they should not close. What they should do is !vote and explain the reasons for their !vote in full. Then the next sysop who comes along to close it will have a better discussion to close, you see.
Infrequently, situations can and do arise in which a sysop is right to overrule the local consensus, but this only happens when there has been sockpuppetry, canvassing, or other bad faith. Sysops are never right to overrule a good faith consensus. If they feel the discussion is defective or reaching the wrong conclusion they should always !vote instead.—S MarshallT/C12:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still want the original nominator, Koavf, to receive some sanctions for using "Decorative", since it's an WP:AAFFD, and for blatantly misrepresenting policy with the language "not critical for understanding", "greatly enhance" and "greatly decrease". To let that language stand without mandating strikethrough or deletion is a horrible precedent. Disgusting, and against the notion of policy as policy, not to be modified on the fly by willful editors. If I had written such a batch of nominations, you and several other admins would have taken direct measures against me but since it's Koavf, it's somehow all good. What's up with that? --Lexein (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that in discussion environments, people have wide latitude to say whatever they like, Lexein. What Koavf said was well within the normal range in Wikipedia discussions.—S MarshallT/C20:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Give what Koavf's noms - and subsequent changes to each one to strike out "Decorative" - the noms were clearly made on proper basis of NFCC#8 failure - lack of any critical discussion of the images or scenes depicted in the bulk of the article. AAFFD is not a policy (and it's not "arguments you're not allowed ever to say", only arguments that without additional support tend to be ignored by admins), and since he did correct he, he's basically been TROUT'd for using that as the simple argument. The nominations were all still valid in their final form; the intent of his argument still rings true and was a valid basis for the closer to act on. You're making a big bad faith assumption that you would have been treated any differently from Koavf here if you had done the same. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just going by experience. "Decorative" (WP:AAFFD), and the misrepresentional "not critical for understanding", "greatly enhance" and "greatly decrease" just have no place in deletion nominations, because policy should simply never be misrepresented. Nominators, IMHO, have a burden of accuracy (and honesty). I don't see where any trout has occurred by anyone, and no complaint about the nomination quality by anyone but me. Another horrible mess of nominations gotten away with, scot free. --Lexein (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You did see that Koavf went through and struck out "decorative" and replaced it with a spelled-out NFCC#8 argument in each of the noms, likely based on one of your initial !votes in an FFD? That's 272 edits. He took his licks to satisfy your complaint on the word "decorative". There's zero reason to "punish" him further.--MASEM (t) 15:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My Bonnie Lies over the Ocean vs. My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean
Hello Kww. With regards to this (by the way, you also changed "IMDb" back to "IMDB" – it would be nice to be a bit more diligent when reverting others), please take a look at the edit summary here. Do you really want to change One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, although it doesn't seem to be spelled with a lowercased "o" in over, like, anywhere? Looking forward to your reply. Regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know you protected the article from being edited by a sockpuppet, but I would to make a couple of small edits to the external links section, if you don't mind. QuasyBoy(talk)09:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least we beat Yolo Swag. Still amazes me that every year people bitch and moan about Arbcom, and every year they vote in nearly exactly the same kind of people.—Kww(talk) 21:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The last time that happened was on October 6, 2012 in this very version and we had just close to 450 citations. So, I had to remove some sources to get the ref. section re-appear. But it's strange because that now that very version shows the ref. section. I'm not sure if they've recently updated the limit of citation templates for a page. I guess that argument won't work.--Harout72 (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These articles should have an individual page, they are notable because a title is being fought for at the events, and they are almost certain to take place, therefore they pass nobility and crystal ball. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for blocking another one of Drecool/Stuffat/etc sock puppets. I wasn't even thinking about that possibility, but in retrospect, it makes sense. Anyways, thanks again. Sergecross73msg me13:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your comments on the proposed changes to WP:MMAEVENT on WT:MMA, there has been consiterable dialog, and the Proposed Changes are on "Version 4". Through the conversation most people have offered their support to the proposal, with 3 people opposed. Of the 3, 2 have now stated that they support the proposal, and i believe the current version addresses the concerns of the remaining opposition. I did ask them to take another look on their talk page, but have not yet heard back. i am wondering if you might lend guidance on what the next step should be? i have never been involved in a RfC, but it seems that some people feel that is the next step. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Kevlar (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on deleting UFC 155 and UFC 156 pages did not have one reason for deletion. If you read the deletion guidance then you would find a list of reasons for deletion. The discussion failed to produce a reason for deletion and therefore is a invalid deletion. More ever is the fact that the redirect results in a link off the page that redirects back to the page. Given that the page is deleted why not delete the list of UFC Events and all things MMA? This is laudable and inconsiderate. Shame. Shame. Shame.173.168.140.188 (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at his talk page. No else gets let of like he is at the moment. He is a very deceptive person. He does reverts and makes sure he changes a few words so it doesn't look like a straight revert. Why he is receiving some sort of special treatment I do not know. AARON• TALK 18:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't actually believe how many chances you are giving him. I have never seen an editor receive the type of treatment he is receiving from you. Look at the state of his talk page, filled with final and only warnings, and not just by me. Haven't you noticed how he "agrees" to what you impose, then when unblocked, goes against it? Every time on every sock account. Saying not to edit war over titles to him unless he agrees not to will only stop him doing it for a few weeks. AARON• TALK 16:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UK chart placements above 40
Kww, I know that Chart Stats still has the copyright issue preventing it from showing the UK chart placements above 40, although is there any other way we can find these placements? E.g. 'x song debuted at number 50'—would this information need to be removed or could we find a source similar to Chart Stats? Till06:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable ones that I know of. Other editors use zobbel, but I've never supported its use. That said, I'm not about to go chasing after people that use it, either.—Kww(talk) 00:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom elections
Sorry about the results – or perhaps "congratulations on your freedom"? I believe you're one of the sanest "opposition" candidates for ArbCom, and I hope you'll continue to contribute from the sidelines (and try again next year). — Coren(talk)22:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty discouraging, actually. I'm going to have to figure out a way to package the concept of "I plan on actually applying policy instead of just making things up as I go along" in a way that people find more attractive. Silly me ... I thought that would be an attractive message. Of course, between the ARS, UFC, and NFCC issues, I've managed to alienate a large section of the electorate. I just wish the other folks would stop and think it through, and realize that someone that applies policy in unpopular instances is an asset, not a liability, when it comes to a body like Arbcom.—Kww(talk) 22:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more that you get (unfairly) lumped up with the "opposition for opposition's sake" crowd because you're a vocal critic of Arbcom; I did notice that you do understand that the committee needs to work even if your suggested reforms meet resistance, and you'd be able to work with the committee. Perhaps that is what was less clear to other voters? — Coren(talk)23:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very disapointed with the results. I voted for you and fully support you, but that is not the entire reason for my disapointment (although, at least one very controversial candidate seems to have been removed by the community) I am disapointed that too many of them are so...whats the best term....insiders? Oh well. Next time.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Policy enforcement
Kww, please reconsider editing wiki pages based on policy alone. Wikipedia deletion polices clearly state that the intention is to have no firm rules or bureaucracy. They also state to keep pages unless they are completely irrelevant or redundant, but to avoid deletion as much as possible.
If you do continue then please do more to make your point than simply pointing to a wiki policy page. Your argument should state specifically and clearly what policy is in conflict. From a non policy point of view there are thousands (millions?) of wiki pages that go against your argument for deletion. With no delivery of clear policy conflicts you will always be receiving similar problems.
173.168.140.188 (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the notion that this article should not have been created. Generally speaking, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources establishes the purpose of creating articles on Wikipedia. The fact that the song was covered in two [12][13] sources that are independent of the album is indicative of notability. Feel free to Afd the article if you wish. Till06:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those is significant coverage in independent sources. They are brief promotional blurbs, targeted at promoting sales of the parent album, appearing in websites that specialize in repacking PR material for advertising dollars.—Kww(talk) 14:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The song is addressed directly in detail in both sources, so yes the coverage is significant. As for independent, Digital Spy and Idolator are both secondary reliable sources specialising in music-related content, not PR material. I can Afd the article on behalf of you if you wish. Till15:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better if you just redirected it an merged it yourself. It is not dealt "directly and in detail" by the sources you have provided. "Then there's 'Thank You For The Heartbreak', a snappy electropop number that could have slotted quite nicely onto the Change album. There's a definite 80s feel to it, but it still sounds distinctively Sugababes." is direct, certainly, but "detailed"? Same with "Thank You For The Heartbreak” is less of a stab at American radio-friendly R&B and more of a return to what Britain’s ‘babes have traditionally excelled at: taking their sass and snappy tell-offs to the dance floor.". Promotional blurbs are not direct and detailed coverage.
There's really no need to haul things like this through AFD all the time, and getting into giant pissing matches about sources all the time. Put a statement in Sweet 7 that says "'Thank Your For the Heartbreak' got positive mention before the album's release, with Digital Spy saying that it had a definite 80's feel while remainingly distinctively Sugababes, and Idolator saying that it represented the style of music at which the Sugababes have traditionally excelled." There's no justification for wrapping an entire article around a trivial nugget like that.
I'm not specifically pointing a finger at you: the pop music area is riddled with things like this. The question people should be asking is not "now that I've found two sources can I figure out how to build an article around it?", it's "what's the shortest and most efficient way for me to convey this information?"—Kww(talk) 15:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Q. Schmidtmy talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas
May your Christmas sparkle with moments of love, laughter and goodwill,
May the year ahead be full of contentment and joy,
May the good times and treasures of the present become the golden memories of tomorrow,
That's him. A little bit of internet sleuthing confirms that one Mathias Svendrup Sandell is a Finnish high school student. I'm going to see if I can't get an edit filter put in place that will deal with him and Dance-pop/CharlieJS13. Should be possible to at least deal with the IPs.—Kww(talk) 23:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a number of issues with your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 157, but there are two main issues. The first is that, in your closing statement, you made a number of opinionated assumptions on people's votes and, indeed in places, seemed to be putting your own arguments in against them rather than the arguments that were actual made in the AfD. The most obvious example of this is your dismissal of Odie5553's argument with a statement that was made nowhere in response to the user, which means you came up with it yourself. Because of this, it would have been far more appropriate for you to vote in the AfD if you had an opinion on it, instead of closing it and instating your own opinion on whether the article should be kept or not.
The second major issue is your involvement in various MMA discussions, including the recent attempt to create a proper guideline for MMA articles. Because this AfD was as contentious as it is, it should have had a completely uninvolved admin close it. And you are clearly not an uninvolved admin in this topic area. SilverserenC10:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dismissal of Odie5553's opinions? I praised them. Go back and read again. As to "opinionated assumptions", I think I explained my weighting pretty thoroughly, and, when the weight I gave to an argument was low, I explained why.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I still have a significant issue with the fact that someone involved in MMA discussions made the close for such a contentious AfD. SilverserenC21:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to comment on the discussion because I had closed other AFDs in the area. I discussed whether the proposed guidelines would address the issues that had caused me to delete previous articles in this area. Admins are required to be open to the community as to the reasons for administrative actions they have taken: it would be perverse to use such required discussions to mark them as involved and incapable of taking further action.
As for my weighing of Odie553's position: he took a position that required the presence of diverse sources, but didn't make note of of whether there was, indeed, a diversity of sources. I'm required to take the accuracy of an argument into account. Think about the converse case: if someone argued that all sources for an article failed WP:RS, wouldn't you expect me to consider whether or not the sources were actually reliable when I was weighing the argument?—Kww(talk) 22:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I suppose it's best to wait until UFC 157 happens anyways, since I know there will be a lot of sources covering it. SilverserenC22:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You specifically said " The flaw in his argument is that he presumes that USA Today represents "diverse sources", so other keep voters are going to have to fill that in by actually finding diverse sources." Did you actually read/consider the branched comments or just each initial comment? The six citations below are a cut & paste of what I wrote in one of the branches exampling available sources, some of which I placed in the article. Furthermore from the formatting this should have been rather difficult to miss:
Daily News (Los Angeles) (longish, non-routine article on challenger Liz Carmouche and her social media tactics to land her the title match)
Considering you found a lack of diverse sources to be a prominent enough issue to be one of exactly two issues that you considered worth noting as your rationale for AfD, and apparently the lack of diverse sources was bad enough that you specifically used the loan example USA Today and MMAJunkie as redundant while not mentioning any other given sources, lack of diverse sources as an argument seems extremely fallacious when there were far more than just those two. Thus I am forced to ask, how are the above sources not relevant? Furthermore, while you argued that notabilty of an event is not inherited from the participants, the two fighters' extensively documented notability is in part inherited from this event in the first place (particularly in Carmouche's case; in contrast, Jessica Aguilar is both openly gay and the consensus #1 fighter in the world in her weight division but she's never fought for a world title as a true one does not currently exist for Women's Strawweight, and thus she has never had anything approaching this sort of coverage).
On top of that, regardless of whether you tried to be more open with your reasoning than in the past, this was still an overwhelmingly contentious debate and you are anything but uninvolved. I do not see how the fact that an editor reached out to ask you for comment/closure changes that or in any way overrides those things and it seems quite problematic that you wouldn't simply recuse yourself. Beansy (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Closing the 157 article without any attempt to have it redirected to an omnibus page or any other solution is a clear example of the willingness here to just make MMA coverage worse without any compromise, while applying extremely high standards to notability. Byuusetsu (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kww, I was not particularly invested on whether the article was deleted or not. However, I can see others have taken to this matter with a lot of passion. In terms of an alternate solution, would you be open to having another admin, who is not involved in the current affairs of MMA on Wikipedia, reassess the closure of the UFC 157 AfD? I only say this because I was surprised it was not closed as no consensus considering the debate going on at WP:MMANOT as its clear that WP:NEVENT does not seem to satisfy all the systemic problems going on with MMA coverage. Mkdwtalk00:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) If even after KWW's comments above addressing that very point and considering all of the four versions of the new guidelines being discussed at WT:MMA all said that future events would not have standalone articles you still feel that the close is wrong then WP:DRV is the place to go. Mtking (edits) 00:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting WP:DRV when I said 'another admin reassess the closure' as only an admin could review the deleted article. I came here first as a courtesy to Kww because he is a well respected admin and editor on Wikipedia. I would not submit a DRV if Kww was not supportive of such an action or submitted further cause as to why not to do so. Also, WP:MMANOT is not even finished regardless of whether it would suit a future event. The article was not closed because of FUTURE but NEVENT. But I do appreciate your input though not technically a question directed at you. Mkdwtalk01:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not insulted when a deletion is taken to DRV. I doubt this one would be overturned, and I see no reason to void the close.—Kww(talk) 03:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't have been created before that omnibus article, certainly. The content was trivial, and already contained in the articles about Carmouche and Rousey.—Kww(talk) 15:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty easy to argue that what's happening at 157 is not trivial, but more importantly, I'd prefer pages were kept up to date instead of the really inconsistent and lazy work involved so far. Byuusetsu (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re:ANI post
I didn't misrepresent anything. The exact quote was I have NO IDEA where the idea of putting macrons on Japanese people's names has come from -- this to me indicated a lack of understanding of the Hepburn romanization system. The macrons are there to represent long vowels, in names of people, places, general vocabulary, etc., and Wikipedia uses the Hepburn system because it is widely accepted. In fact, it also has general acceptance in WikiProject Japan -- even JoshuSasori, and his proposal's other supporters, only suggested rejecting one part of the Hepburn system for the names of post-Meiji people (presumably leaving the rest of the articles untouched). Regardless of what Japanese people you know do with their names, they almost certainly spell their names in some form of Hepburn. And most Japanese actually don't use the roman alphabet to spell their names anyway, except when interacting with foreigners. I know a good few Japanese (in Japan) who use the macron, and I have also seen "ou" and "oh" on numerous occasions; but our personal experiences are irrelevant on Wikipedia, where some form of consistency is generally seen as best.
Anyway, arguments about spelling are pretty pointless. The rules are what they are, and I don't intend to change them. I have posted a peace offering on JoshuSasori's talk page, and I don't intend to create any more bad blood between the two of us. His actions led me to believe that he has an agenda against Wikipedia's current naming conventions and is deliberately flouting them in his edits; my actions led him to believe I was following him around Wikipedia and deliberately undermining his edits. I know he was wrong in the latter, and I am willing to say that I was wrong in the former.
Hi, as you are aware I have been trying to replace a picture I took on the Taio Cruz page but got involved in an edit war with 78.25.222.231 who you gave a warning too, although unlike me this user was not blocked. The page appears to have become a sales site for not only singles and albums, but also sunglasses, clothes and other Taio Cruz products, and when I removed an unsubstantiated reference to some supposed celebrity sunglasses wearers it was interesting that the reference was replaced (although in amended form) by a user: 78.25.222.226 - which appears very similar to the edit warrer about the photo. I am also concerned about the user ClarityFacts who seems to be pushing the same line on the photographs - pushing the use of a studio shot, released into the public domain by Taio Cruz Ltd. Is there any way it can be looked into whether these editors (and maybe others on the page) have a conflict of interest? Holly har (talk) 12:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You most certainly are. Your most recent post on the Taio Cruz talkpage continues your accusations. I would suggest that if you don't either start providing proof, or stop with the accusations, that you'll either no longer be editing Wikipedia, or as a minimum you'll be no longer editing any articles related to Mr Cruz (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is amazing how this site seems to state a willingness to reach consensus on content through discussion on talk pages (I have attempted to do this but so far my postings on the Taio Cruz talk page appear to have been largely ignored) but actually to operate by threat and action. Anyway, as I said, I have not made any assertions that any particular other editor is a PR person. However, I have mentioned my concerns about the type of activity that his happening on the page. How would you explain that information about touring (which would seem relevant to the history of a performing artist like Taio Cruz) is deleted, but details about celebrities wearing his sunglasses brand are almost religiously preserved? Holly har (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might want also to look into the activities of editor 78.25.222.237 on the Taio Cruz page (another very similar number to the two mentioned above). Holly har (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From my reading of the relevant block log, your block lasted seven minutes. That seems like a pretty good indication to me that it was an unwise block. In your defense, it was two minutes longer than the previous block lasted. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or a sign of incredibly poor judgement on Floquenbeam's part. I know which one I believe to be true. The only reason Malleus is so much trouble is because people let him be. If people would stop unblocking him, the troubles would cease.—Kww(talk) 04:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you're right. If a block could stick, perhaps it would be effective. Though you could equally say "if all the vandals got bored and stopped vandalizing, the troubles would cease" or "if everyone focused only on article work, the trouble would cease." Everyone has to operate within the confines of reality. It's difficult to get an indefinite block to stick to any long-time contributor, but a quick look at Malleus' block log quickly indicates that in his case, it's impossible to get any block to stick. This is Giano all over again, of course. The only thing you've guaranteed with your block is that you won't be able to ever block Malleus in the future, as you're now considered involved. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:INVOLVED: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area".—Kww(talk) 19:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"If people would stop unblocking him the trouble would cease"? What a load of shit! That's like a corrupt judge complaining that another judge set free an innocent man he had unjustly imprisoned. The only "trouble" here is you and your ilk. If the next admin (and you can bet your ass there will be one) to issue a bullshit block to Malleus (or anyone for that matter) was indefed and desysoped, I promise you there would be no more trouble. Then maybe those of us who are actually here to contribute, rather than flex and pose, could make some progress. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vested or vestal?
The vested contributor discussions have been too important not to perfect them.
Instead of vested contributor, it would be better to call them vestal contributors. When there is a political crisis, such as dropping numbers of contributors or too few RfAs, it is obvious that a vestal contributor has forsaken their vows, such as civility, and a vestal contributor must be sacrificed to appease the gods. Kiefer.Wolfowitz20:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even ignoring the deletions, this is a pretty large WP:Copying within Wikipedia problem. Due to the number of articles involved, I think that the best solution is to restore the history under the redirects (undoing the UFC 157 histmerge and deuserfying the other pages) instead of using a more complicated WP:Merge and delete workaround. Using the most common and straightforward implementation outweighs the possible appearance of rewarding this behavior.
Hi. I've been following the activities of ComputerGeek3000 for a while now. I've not requested a checkuser yet, but I strongly suspect ComputerGeek3000 of using sock puppet accounts at the Commons: commons:User:Thundercat, commons:User:DarkForest, and commons:User:Cavanaugh64 are all accounts that had the same uploads as commons:User:ComputerGeek3000. In addition the images uploaded by these accounts have been added to Wikipedia articles exclusively by ComputerGeek3000 or the IP addresses that he uses when not logged in (e.g. 69.209.216.84(talk·contribs·WHOIS)). When he adds copyvio images to Wikipedia articles I don't think it makes a difference whether he uploads the photo to Wikipedia directly or uses a sock account at the Commons.—Jeremy (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can add anything to this list it would be appreciated. I think we need to talk about a central repository for this splintered discussion. Perhaps a notice in Signpost? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Undutchables
Why twice? Because this one is even mentioned in the book review of "The Undutchbles", if you follow the isbn link. The other one is not as prominent and not mentioned. The ref mentions both but we have no fulltext link, and if the ref (Undutchables) has redundancies, we may well cite to both, in particular one that can be verified from the book abstract. It lowers the probability that it is reverted as vandalism, by one who cannot verify it and can't believe. Cheers.
70.137.142.230 (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Besides, you did not revert for vandalism but for redundancy. But it has been previously reverted for vandalism 3 times by an editor, 2 times by cluebot.
70.137.142.230 (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After working for a Royal Dutch company for 33 years I may have developed a bias and a preference for such redundancies, as these 33 years were also fully redundant - it was simply one day repeating over and over and over for 33 years. Like in "Groundhog Day". Fortunately the pay day also repeated over and over. Cheers.
70.137.142.230 (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, how are you? I have a query in regards to the Dutch Top 40 chart: is the Tipparade an extension of this chart? Eg. if a song reaches #1 on the Tipparade, is that equivalent to #41 on the Dutch Top 40 chart, since the latter only goes up to 40? Till04:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tipparade is a combined sales/airplay chart that excludes any single that has charted on the Dutch Top 40 chart, which is sales only. Basically things are successful on airplay but failing to sell. Completely distinct charts.—Kww(talk) 05:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well here you said that the Dutch 40 is a sales/airplay chart, so now I'm confused. Also, this is fabrication/untrue according to your statements because there are positions >40 for NLD since the Tipparade/Dutch 40 charts appear to be conjuncted. Till05:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got the Dutch and Belgian charts crossed up. The rules I just gave are for the Belgian sales chart and the Belgian Tippparades. Let me see if I can figure out the Dutch Tipparade rules. They aren't on the site.—Kww(talk) 05:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently a song has to chart on the Tipparade before it appears on the official Top 40 chart, even if it's just for one week. I went through the chart history of some songs on the Top 40 chart of this week and that theory appears to be true. Also, most of the sources that I found state that the Tipparade acts as a "pre-chart" or "extension" chart to the Top 40. Till15:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this AGF? - "probable abuse of the SOCK policy by someone appearing (not intending to appear, but appearing, and not to any real editor, but to a hypothetical editor ) to edit the page as 2 different users (because of using an IP), avoiding scrutiny of the community (even though all edits can be scrutinized by looking at the history page, without going ad hominem and trolling anyone)". A check user is only effected in EXTREME cases of abuse, and no one produced an iota of evidence of even a minor abuse, or even alleged a minor abuse without evidence. Certainly no oe showed any evidence of any intent to do anything other than improve the Alt med article. How did this checkuser come about? Given any power, people will use it. (Note that the editor who brought the admin noticeboard issue, repeatedly deleted NSF as a source, arguing National Science Foundation is not a reliable source at talk. Caving in to such editors with Wikijudge severe witch hunt judgments is likely how the TCM article ended without it being considered an alt med.)
It is an assumption of "probable abuse", the opposite of an assumption of good faith. There ar all sort of reasons to use Ips. The reasoning behind this block is that ANY IP use is automatically assumed to be a bad faith SP intent.
No one has even remotely alleged that anyone intended to appear as 2 different users. Going from a Starbucks to a McDonalds and back to Strbucks is not socking, unless you assume bad faith. The anti-AGF block has made editing impossible for any of the group of expert witnesses associated with one of the source authors in medical fraud cases. These are the very experts who are best qualified to edit on this topic at Wikipedia. The prosecutorial pharisaism at Wikipedia has grown into a monster. No one wants to come to Wikipedia and be assaulted by a bunch of Wiki lawer prosecutors. People come here to edit on topics in which they have expertise, not sit in a defendant's box in an evidence-free assumption of guilty bad faith Wiki-witch-trial. This block just scared away everyone else who has been sitting on the sidelines, not yet willing to get their feet wet, but on the verge of doing so.
Regarding TCM, I have not followed the history, and I just now discovered it is no longer considered an "alternative medicine" at Wikipedia. I went to that article and each of the examples of alt med at NCAAM, to pull the lede first sentences out use in the examoles section in the alt med article. That should have been routine. What I found was a massive amount of nonsense fluff that looks like it was written by Mao himself. Then I went to the history page, and clicked "500 edits", then "older 500", then "older 500", and found that the reference list once looked entirely different. Almost all of the references in the "1000 edits ago" version of BullRangifer are gone. The TCM article should be an article about Mao's creation, not an advertisement for it. I am about to do the same on all of the other alt med example aritcles, and expect to find something similar, although the homeopathy article and acupunture article look like real encyclopedia articles. The Ayurvedic medicine articls looks like Deepak Chopra wrote it. I don't known who has influence on this "scare away new editors by accusations of wiki-witchraft and assume bad faith whenever one has power re SP, but it is not working to improve WiIkipedia. I made a similar comment here[23]. I know you are just a volunteeer here, the same as me, but if no at least tried to do something to fix things, it iscertain that nothing will get fixed. Whoever thinks Wikipedia "naturally" evolves to better articles, is like the person who believes there is a benign god, so they need take no action on anything. Wikipedia does not fix itself. Rather than banning IPs, maybe we should ban usernames. Looking at the TCM article, it ceratinly couldn't get worse. And that is one of the more "watched: articles. Whoever is "watching" over there is certainly not competent to do so. 64.134.222.106 (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for being so damn good at reverting the chart changes on discographies that are not covered by their sources. This happens so often, as you're clearly aware of, and it's great to see somebody on them in a wide sense. Keep up the great work! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Kww, you undid the revision 534013309, as you said it "states beliefs as facts". But this introduction also shares information found in the main Muhammad article (introduction part). Some elements might be regarded as beliefs, but was the entire part a belief? Is it not true that the principles he established became the foundation of Islam? Is it false that he is considered last prophet by Muslims? Was the full name of Muhammad a belief? As such, how can the deletion of the entire part be justified? Problematic parts could be corrected upon suggestion, if any. After all, this article describes Muhammad from Islamic perspective. If information from the Islamic perspective can not be included in the article, then why is this title? Thousands of articles cite references from Quran. So did my writing.
I'm trying to give this article a good shape. I think such sweeping deletion will hamper its improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsceticRose (talk • contribs) 09:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've prepared the following lead section for the article. Please review and say if it contains any problematic elements. Waiting for response...Thanks in advance.
This is previous article of temperate climate [24]; later in 2008, User:Rvollmert create redirect to article of Temperateness, and 4-years later (see 2008 and 2012) user-red link copied alive (copy/paste method) content from Temperateness to Temperate climate [25]. This is falsification of the history of changes. The current text of the article [26] has history of changes in Temperateness [27]. You must to integrate the two stories of changes or remove article of Temperate climate and move Temperateness (with the primary-original history) to Temperate climate. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from overstepping my bounds (sorry), I did post a template on the Temperate Climate talk page that that states Temperateness was merged and this had a link to the Temperateness talk page. I guess that's not enough. Also, I did erase the merge call on Middle latitudes, perhaps that was also outside my bounds as well. Thank you both for cleaning up my mess, I'll try harder next time to stay within my skills. Watchwolf49z (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Subtropical-man Seems Eager To Start An Edit War
Despite be politely asked to discuss his changes he seems intent on editing without and in one case clearly against consensus, he he even went as far as removing the "please discuss changes" warning after being reverted once [28]. I really have little interest in getting involved in an edit war here and noticed you were involved in his recent block so I'm hopeful you may have some insight here, before this escalates. Ridernyc (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
where is consensus? Please link. Again. Secondly, Kww and me are in conflict, this is bad addressed post, in this situation, Kww should move the matter to a neutral person. Thirdly: Ridernyc, ask for discussion - create new topic in the talk page, not reverted again and also you wrote: I really have little interest in getting involved in an edit war here - but, this is facts: you started edit-war? yes!, you run a edit-war? - yes! and you have made four reverts - break rules of Wikipedia: 3RR. You pretending innocence and at the same time you create and run a edit-war. I'm not going to argue with you. I ended reverted because it does not make sense. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again not sure why you are so hostile about discussion and consensus building. I have asked you repeatedly to start a discussion yet you revert and attack repeatedly. Ridernyc (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subtropical-man, you need to review WP:INVOLVED: there's nothing in our history that would prevent me taking action against you if it was justified. Ridernyc, I need to see a bit more evidence of a real disruption, though: I see a disagreement between the two of you on one article, but not rampant edit-warring. I'd like to see a pointer to the consensus you refer to as well.—Kww(talk) 17:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kww, I review WP:INVOLVED. If it is blatant vandalism (when it requires the fastest intervention) is ok, in the rest situations, you should ask another (neutral) administrator (or users without administrator privileges, willing to help) to (neutral) study the case. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I am of a different opinion. I have big doubts about your need for blocking users (in a given situation) and the length of blocks. I have a feeling, that the typical 3RR (4 or more reverts) you give block for me on two months or similarly etc. Of course, this block is nonsense but after your previous behavior, I would not be surprised. Also, you create penalties for me and you not reacted to my opponents' offenses. And also - you blocking user-opponent in the case in which you have involved. It was previously. How do I know behind week will similarly, for example: there are one edit-war, me and user X have 3 reverts, you blocked me and no reaction for user X. This is neutral? This was true in the past, punishment for me and no reaction for other user. I want to be neutral to you. I'm sorry, but try to avoid me and I you, will be better. The English Wikipedia currently has 1,458 administrators (without you, 1,457), is almost one and a half thousand administrators can get involved in my cases. This is very more than enough. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind two things: first, I haven't decided to block anyone. I haven't decided to take any action at all. Ridernyc did not provide any evidence that you have been disruptive, and you haven't done so in regard to him. Second, you don't get to pick and choose which adminstrators take action in cases involving you and which don't.—Kww(talk) 19:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm? "choose"? I do not choose, I stating a fact, that you as administrator are not neutral to me and official inform, accordance with the standards of Wikipedia, you should avoid confrontation with me (except blatant vandalism, when it requires the fastest intervention etc). Thank you. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I officially inform you, in accordance with the standards of Wikipedia, that you cannot challenge administrators that you do not like in order to attempt to get them to recuse themselves from cases involving you. If, at any time in the future, I determine that administrative action is required in regard to you, I will take that action without hesitation.—Kww(talk) 19:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"not like"? This is don't "not like". In relation to you are serious accusations supported by evidence, this is don't "not like". Also, I agreed with this, I quote you: "administrative action is required in regard to you, I will take that action without hesitation" but only required/necessary/requisite". For example, this case in not required/necessary/requisite. Although this case is probably finished, such cases should move to the other administrators. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, if I decide adminstrative action is required in respect to you, I will take it without hesitation. I feel no obligation to move anything to another administrator, and you have presented no "serious evidence" that WP:INVOLVED would apply to me in regard to you.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above total hostility is why I brought this here. There is a clear lack of willing to work to form any consensus. It's jsut attack attack attack. Your not even taking sides in anything and he found a way to attack. I let other editors handle his instance on editing info boxes. There is a long history of more involved editors at that article. I do find his misuse of policies amusing though. Something violates NPOV because there is no one from Australia listed? Bigger fish to fry today. Ridernyc (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there are 5 poorly listed artists from the USA, 0 from other countries. Why not be one world-known artist from Australia? PS. Still waiting for a link to a consensus. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. You mentioned at ANI that you've restored Extreme transaction processing. Not sure if you're aware that Extreme Transaction Processing (note the capitalisation) also exists. They're broadly similar, indeed include some esxact prhasing. One was redirected to the other before the deletion, and then the other was created. I have no opinion on which, if any should exist, but as you've prodded one, you might want to look at the other and either prod, or remove the first prod. Or something else entirely :) GedUK13:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re "I misread your edit, and thought you had done it again." No, instead I repeated the first part of Status's statement — the part I was replying to — in ital and then positioned my "Yes" reply indented below it. Since then someone took out the repeated statement, so it's STILL not clear that I'm not replying to Status's entire statement, and therefore (to my mind) it doesn't completely make sense.
Thanks for making an effort to stop these fake citations. It's really good to know that someone cares about it because I really try to put the correct positions of songs that charted on Billboard Brasil. Here's the following translation for the warning into Brazilian Portuguese:
Nota: Posições de hot100brasil.com não devem ser incluídas na Wikipédia. Esta tabela está listada dentro de WP:BADCHARTS. Ela não está relacionada à Billboard Brasil. Usar posições de hot100brasil.com e afirmá-las falsamente como sendo da Billboard Brasil é vandalismo e resultará no impedimento de edição do seu endereço de IP. Se você adicionar uma posição da Billboard Brasil e incluir uma referência correta à revista Billboard Brasil, então salve suas mudanças novamente.
The more something tends towards a content management problem, the more weight headcount is typically given (or if you prefer to be pedantic, how seriously the community takes an argument should weigh into how seriously I take it when closing. If nobody who participates in the discussion buys an argument, I shouldn't give it much weight). For instance, you suggest that it fails WP:V, but nobody who participates in the discussion takes it all that seriously. Now, I don't either - it clearly doesn't fail WP:V - but even if I did, I shouldn't way overweight my interpretation relative to the community. Exceptions exist - canvassing distorting the sampled cross section, or really straightforward interpretations like copyright infringement, but when you're trying to make a novel argument about how to apply a policy in a new way, and nobody buys it, I can't overrule the consensus to impose my own opinions. Similarly, the very last !vote alludes to the idea that it fails WP:N; but I can't do much with it not having been discussed (and given that there was a long discussion and the point came up once without any significant discussion, I can't weight it that much, either). You might, if you genuinely believed that it fails WP:N, you could nominate for deletion on that grounds (though even a short search suggests why that idea wasn't seriously entertained). WilyD08:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Kww, if your point was "some single source must assert both the fundamental thesis and the importance of the topic of an article" for a WP article to merit existence, a) it's understandable but b) it's not required at Wikipedia as far as I've been able to determine. I remember reading some sturm und drang about it over the years. I first ran into this notion on a smaller scale at Plagiarism detection#Plagiarism_detection_systems_for_text-documents. I saw a list of detection systems which were inline-linked; I converted those to inline citations, and hunted around for independent reliable sources for verification of the existence and importance of those systems in that table. Some weren't discussed in independent RS, and so were removed. But another editor went at it hammer and tongs anyways, citing ELNO, linkspam, SYNTH, and OR, and stated that, in his opinion and reading of policy, because no single source simultaneously discussed all those systems' importance at once, the table had no right to exist in the article. To me, this bears a similarity to your argument. This desire for a single "hero" source to bear the weight of N, importance, and justification for inclusion of a list of examples, or for a whole article is (to me) a fallacy which might already have been named by someone, but I'll call it the "hero source fallacy".
Of course, any claim stated in the article prose about the importance of the topic must be supported by/attributed to RS. Hopefully some article improvement will occur due to the AfD anyways. --Lexein (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Ok. I see that to you, "meets" means a high percentage of claims citing RS, whereas to WilyD "meets" has a way lower threshold and seems to mean "capable of being verified" (as opposed to "verified as evidenced by the presence of inline citations of RS"). You know what? I'm appalled. Nobody made a move to fix the damn article even a little bit. I at least sometimes take AfD as a signal that an article needs some key improvement right now, such as WP:Articles for deletion/The Space Show("a spirited effort to bring the article up to WP:GNG standards.") and WP:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (3rd nomination) (many sources added). Anyways, I agree with your nomination of NYCSipc, though for the purpose of cracking the whip to get sourcing improvement, not necessarily for actual deletion. Going forward, an argument can be made that items w/bluelinks, if the bluelinks contain RS-support for the claim, can suffice in lieu of local explicit inline citations. But this isn't in place either, upon examination. So I'm tempted to go through and delete items lacking independent RS, and whose bluelinked articles also lack such sources re the claim made. And I'm an inclusionist. You? --Lexein (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is impossible when the merge target is already 124k. (i.e., if you merged it, the only responsible thing to do as an editor would be to immediately spin it out again.) Meaning 14 of the 17 editors who looked at the situation felt the article should be kept. Merge is absolutely the worst possible close. If someone had gone to say as to say "I looked for sources to see whether it meets WP:N, and couldn't find any", that could've been given considerable weight, but nobody did that. That's pretty run of the mill stuff. But nobody did it. You bizarrely argued it should be deleted for failing WP:V, which nobody else took seriously (which would've made it truly impossible for you to close it that way - nobody then would've argued it, and closing a discussion to a position no one argues is indefensible (well, excluding CSD closes)). But it doesn't fail WP:V, not remotely, in any sense, so no one takes that position seriously. It does not, as it stands, meet the best practices suggested by WP:V, but that's an extremely different case. Feel free to nominate for deletion for failing WP:N if you spend some time looking for sources and can't find any. But spoiler alert: they're not that hard to find - meaning that such a nomination would be spurious and disruptive. Better practice would be to find and add those sources, if producing a good quality encyclopaedia is your goal. WilyD17:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think the assertion that the article lacks verification is "bizarre" - it is arguable. It is correct in three ways: 1) the article itself "lacks" (has very little) evidence of such verification - three narrowly specific refs do not strong overall V make (little direct V). 2) the bluelinked articles have a deep "lack" (paucity) of inline citations of reliable sources supporting the claims made in NYSIPC (little indirect V). 3) We don't write totally primary-sourced articles. We just don't! IMO editors who "didn't take seriously" Kww's argument are in for a rude shock at the strong hands of WP:N and WP:GNG.
Worse, none of the Keep !voters bothered to add any V to the article. That's an embarrassing lack of independent verification in place. The voice of Wikipedia is the voice of the sources, not editors saying, "Here's this thing I noticed one day." One editor asserted that to require than an IRS (rather than primary) support a claim is silly gameplaying - a ridiculous assertion which should have been addressed strongly: No song, as a primary source, even showing existence of lyrics about NYCS, can demonstrate importance in the culture (in culture being the topic of the article) such as awards, popularity, or even discussion. That's why we don't rely on primary sources alone. Further: WP:42. Anyways, WilyD, your closing comment could certainly have had stronger insistence about better sourcing, without overstepping closer's bounds. --Lexein (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
V isn't best practice; like every policy, it contains elements from requirements to goals. Things you always must do (like only include information that can be verified), to things that are ideal (like avoiding primary sources). If you read through the whole policy, it makes it abundantly clear why you should do this: people/organisations often publish unreliable things about themselves to make themselves sound good (and conversely, slag other people, which is more significant). If a publisher is unreliable, or an involved party, you can't trust them to represent themselves fairly. That concern doesn't apply to whether or not Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is set in the New York Subway - yes, it's a primary source, but there's no reasonable concern that it's an unreliable source on this point. How could it be?
You're again confusing the point of WP:V and WP:N - in most cases, yes, whether or not secondary sources take note of something is a sensible criterion to use in discerning whether to include a particular piece of information or not. That's not always true (especially in the case of plot summaries, but there are other cases too). The "point" of WP:V is whether information can be verified in a way that's reliable. Little (if any) of the information in that article/list runs afoul of that. Consider the difference between the phrases Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and Articles must be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to see the difference between a requirement and a goal. In most cases, reliable, third party sources are required to ensure that information can be confidently verified, though exceptions exist. In this case, you can confidently verify the information from the primary sources. Notability is a separate question (but it's easy enough to address if you can be bothered.) WilyD16:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're joking, right? This is too easy. "That concern doesn't apply to whether or not Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is set in the New York Subway - yes, it's a primary source, but there's no reasonable concern that it's an unreliable source on this point. How could it be?"
Not everyone has heard of TMNT, nor should that be expected or required of Wikipedia visitors. This isn't TMNTpedia.
WP isn't community memory, where "yes, I remember that" is sufficient sourcing. Readers must be provided, by WP wide-consensus policy, best-effort proof, in the form of independent reliable sourcing, that such a claim has been checked by others. They shouldn't be kept from that because you think the primary source is reliable. We regularly backstop primary source claims with independent ones, as you know.
"No reasonable concern"? Wow. Primary sources, written in universe, assert that TMNT are real. Should we just go with that, since primary sources have no reason to lie? Independent reliable sources generally correct a lot of crap which primary sources get away with saying.
I actually don't think I'm confusing the points of V and N. Jimmy Wales railed on this very point: if a claim is made, and an independent reliable source is not cited, how do I know, as a reader, if it's true or just made up? Who made the claim? Has anybody checked this? Wales demanded that every unsourced claim should be deleted on sight, spawning in one email screed a whole horrorshow generation of deletionist thugs. Nowadays as inclusionists we tag unsourced items {{fact}}, we take to talk unsourced items, and we reluctantly delete unsourced and unsourceable items (after looking) as a last resort. We WP:PRESERVE.
Your question about primary sources unintentionally makes my point. You ask "How can it be?" - this goes to the very heart of the matter: primary sources do lie, exaggerate, obfuscate, even if they don't mean to and that's why we don't write articles relying on Primary sources. Ever. Independent sources are better because they lie less. NYCSIPC is rife with unsourced items, and although I initially cared that your close was too passive, and too status quo, leaving the list repeatedly vulnerable to additional AfDs. Now, based on your answers here, and heavy reluctance to even enhance your closing reason with a call for sources, I find my self not caring.myself not sweating it so much. I argue for slack elsewhere, some can exist here.
I'm an wp:inclusionist who happens to believe that an article, properly built, supports every challengeable claim made with a citation of independent reliable source(s) (independent if at all possible), so that the voice of the article is not Wikipedia, but that of the source(s). Articles lacking independent RS for V are labeled by general usage nowadays bluntly "unsourced"; such articles put Wikipedia in the uncomfortable and unwanted position of authority about fact, which by our policies (mainly WP:V), we deliberately and strongly avoid. It's the sources.
I guess I'm really a selective actionist inclusionist because I consider some articles worthy of saving by my effort (examples above), and some not worthy of saving due to a too-diffuse topic, no core sources supporting the topic, no prior sourcing effort whatsoever, and obvious lack of will to source: this fits NYCSIPC to a 't'. I find the a hypothetical assertion that an article should be kept because of eventualism in sourcing to be a misinterpretation of WP:V, and a kind of passive inclusionism with which I don't functionally agree. As a practical matter, we should be increasing the directly perceived reliability of the encyclopedia. Since there's no group will to improve the reliability of NYCSIPC, and since this harms the encyclopedia every time a reader sees it as an example, given how little reliable independent sourcing it has, NYCSIPC should be deleted. Again, I'm an inclusionist: just not a "no inline-cited sources? okay-by-me!" inclusionist. --Lexein (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Addendum: I did not intend to shut down discussion by being obstreperous; just trying to flesh out my position. It seemed to have a better tone when I wrote it. I've made two edits above. --Lexein (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you shut down discussion: you aren't arguing with me, and I don't think WilyD is interested in the discussion.—Kww(talk) 17:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me, these come across as personal attacks on other users. I don't know whom you're accusing, exactly what you're accusing them of, or whether your accusations are valid. I do know that serious accusations without evidence violate our policies, and create a toxic atmosphere that makes it harder to form consensus. The fact that the accusations are phrased so vaguely actually makes them worse because you afford the accused no meaningful right of reply.
If you feel that some conduct by other users merits discussion, investigation or sanction, we have various avenues available for dispute resolution. Sniping in an unrelated debate is not one of them. I appreciate that you wanted to convey the point that the community might be especially leery of end-runs around consensus with respect to PC2, but I think you could have found a better way to phrase it.
Hi Kww, I just learnt that you're working on fixing the Billboard IDs for the Albumchart and Singlechart templates. Yesterday I stumbled across this issue and made a sandbox version at {{Albumchart/sandbox}}. You might be interested in it. I was particularly bothered by the fact that the artists' first and last names are now separated by a hyphen in the Billboard urls, so that's why I wrote a replacement for the space character in the {{{artist}}} string: {{str rep|{{urlencode:{{{artist}}}}}|+|-}}. Not sure if there's a magic word or template to do this, but apparently my workaround does the job.
Please note also that not only the Billboard urls have been subject to a change but also the UK charts template code doesn't work any more. The "artist name" entry for Officialcharts.com needs to have a true space character between first and last name in the url, not an undescore. So we need to use {{urlencode:{{{artist}}}|PATH}} for the UK charts. De728631 (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing. But I have another idea too. Why not making a separate template containing all the chartnums? Or the chartnums will be added only at {{Singlechart}} and it won't be modified in the rest of the pages? — ΛΧΣ2118:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that was what I was asking. If we only have to update albumchart and singlechart, then it's fine. I deployed the new template only on the Billboard 200 entry to see how it works. — ΛΧΣ2119:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yay. Amazing idea. I will be updating the Albumchart template tomorrow if I have time, or not after the end of this week. Those additional templates might help a lot :) — ΛΧΣ2102:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Three distinct charts? As in pre-October 2012 country, and the two charts they have now? The "Country Airplay" is the same as the pre-October 2012 "Hot Country Songs" chart. The chart that is now called Hot Country Songs is the one that factors in downloads and pop airplay, thus leading to Taylor Swift spending 97 weeks in the penthouse. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)04:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, If you want I stop editing the Bridgit Mendler article. No problem. Just stop chasing me, XENOPHOBIC! The world doesn't need more prejudiced people like you. Stephanie J Stone(talk) 02:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. So I took your advice and put the "article" in my user space but I had to use this profile because my Matt723star one was getting over populated with deletion stuff. So, if you could help me out with the process of turning my article into an article, it would be much appreciated! --Barbiesarelegit (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry
You are right. I do need to reference more about the page. If there will be a page for TMPGiS it will be on this page. I will no longer use my Barbiesarelegit page and I will try my best to make it an article when I have enough resources to do so. I didn't mean to blow your stuff up, like your messages and what not. Again. I'm sorry. --Matt723star (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's because there's a reference somewhere on this page. Instead of suppressing the message inside the reference properly for the case of an unlisted reference on a talk page, they suppressed it on the English translation of the error message. The Dutch interface doesn't suppress the message, so whenever I edit a page with that problem, the message shows up. Editors that use the French interface have the same problem, I believe.—Kww(talk) 21:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked that, even if you write the name with the first letter capitalized, the template recognizes it and returns the correct link. So, I think this won't be an issue. I have updated {{Albumchart}} now and it is working again as it should. Thanks for all the help solving this big fiasco :) — Hahc21talk06:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you mean inside, you mean that I have to write {{BillboardID|artist}} in lowercase, but if I use {{Albumchart}} with the artist=Artist parameter, it doesn't, right? I think that this is what's happening now. — Hahc21talk15:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How cute of you to still have those pages on your watch list months later, old man. It's still pointless. I'll simply revert one edit a month when the lock expires in April. You're still an old loser. Botto is right. I'm not FOJ. Tell your wife I said hello. I'll see you in April. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.198.10.94 (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Kevin, this to repeat in brief what I said at AN: I had no idea that this was the editor you and I disagreed on last year until just now. I have no idea why that discussion derailed into some investigation of who I champion (I don't champion anybody) or how you are acting inappropriately in this way or that (I don't think you did). I happen to disagree with you, but I have no intention of quarreling with you or impugn your actions as an admin or editor over this sock. I'm going to let that discussion roll on, since I have very little interest in the subject matter. I just don't want there to be bad blood between us because of the words of some third (or fourth) party. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to be rude or anything, but I looked at your editing history after you reverted me and um....if somebody changes something relating to billboard chart ranking without a citation, especially if they have the citationin the edit summary, could you not just revert it right away? It's really easy to check if they're putting accurate information, especially if the link is right there, so it would be much more helpful to add the citation yourself if you're unsatisfied with the way it's cited. Reverting it makes the encyclopedia incorrect, and that's....not good. And if the link's not right there, the billboard charts are right at billboard . com for everyone to see, so it's pretty easy to check yourself. It's really, really uncommon for people to change billboard rankings to inaccurate ones and very common to not put citations in those areas (don't ask me why that is, i really don't know, but a lot of the articles are made that way) so it's doing more harm than good. So yeah. Uh. That's all. Politoed89 (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But...that doesn't make sense to me at all. If you're potentially making the page more inaccurate why would you not check first? I mean I'm pretty sure it's everyone's job to "clean up" after people since this is an encyclopedia and the goal is to have as much accurate information as possible, even if it does require adding something yourself... Politoed89 (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As you're one of those folks who contributed to the work title capitalization rules discussion over at WT:MoS but then seemed to tune out (and therefore – as opposed to the "MoS regulars" – probably didn't follow it any further), I just briefly wanted to point you towards my latest post there (beginning with "As there has been little progress"), which might well be the last overall: I'm phasing out, and since there hasn't been much input by other users lately, it's likely that over the next few days, the thread'll die (i.e., disappear into the archives) without there having been made any changes to the MoS. So I'd be much obliged if you took the time to stake your support for or opposition to my proposal (should I also have put an RfC tag there?) and – unless it's accepted (I'm not holding my breath...) – maybe even considered keeping the debate going. Thanks. (I'm aware of the unsolicited nature of this message, so if you feel molested by it, I apologize.) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand sock puppetry but did you really have to protect the article for only administrators to edit? Ironically, today I was planning to overhaul the article finally. Currently it looks like a joke. — Robin(talk)17:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that I haven't gotten around to helping with the template, I've been pretty busy with college applications and just school in general. I'll add it to my to-do list this weekend. Status00:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you watch the article Almost Home (Mariah Carey song), I tried to redirect it multiple times as it is a non-charted song, but it has eventually become a fancrufty pro-Carey advertisment article: "Mariah's new single "Almost Home" is already #1 at the iTunes stores in Singapore and Philippines!", "If you haven't already purchased the single, go to your local iTunes store." I have reverted three times so I cannot do something there, and the song eventually will chart so I won't AFD it. So, can you check the article. Thanks. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions.05:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.
If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡01:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.[reply]
Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Heart and Soul (1938 song)".
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Thank-you! I scanned over the guidelines briefly, but didn't see the percentage of certified in relation to claimed sales; I just added the Pepsi source without that knowledge. —Jennie | ☎19:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then tell me how you would've responded to "Don't adopt this tone with me. (link to an old debate we had months ago). How can removing sourced material be justified as constructive? Should I assume that according to you, far too many people are inspired by Beyonce and you are just removing the least famous ones just to [trim the] overlong list of singers influenced by her?" --Aichik (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail!
Hello, Kww. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 23:28, 26 February 2013 (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.
I think this sentence is pretty much self-explanatory. "And I also notified people who are NOT members of the wiki-project." It means I notified both people who are members of the wiki-project and some who are not as well, so that you don't come up telling me I was biased. In addition to leaving a message on the talk-page of the wiki-project, I also left the (active) members a message personally on their own talk-page because like I pointed out "[b]elieve it or not, leaving a message on the talk-page of the wiki-project often goes unnoticed." Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not canvass. I will not admit something I have not done. I really think you should check a dictionary for the meaning of canvassing. I never told anyone to be influenced by my point of view nor did I tell anyone to support me. I will say it AGAIN, I did not canvass. And really, you will block me for this (something I did not even do)? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no other words to say in my defense as my conscience is clear. Do what you wish. And yes, continue your sympathetic behavior with Aichik. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
regarding our discussion about Dan T. Sehlberg. Dan T. Sehlberg is the correct article so it can remain so i can work on the article with better sources and so on. No redirect from that page to any other spelling.Ovetove (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't quote me without giving context, Status, or shall I say Just-Another-Editor-Canvassed-by-Jivesh. I said and Aichik (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He gave context by giving the link. It wasn't anything I was going to take action on, but it didn't paint you in a particularly good light either. Dismissing his concerns doesn't either.—Kww(talk) 19:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've been intermixing statements about editors and statements about content. Your concerns about content are appreciated, your statements about editors keep my fingers hovering around the block button.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's extremely frustrating dealing with some of these editors, sorry. But saying someone is 20 years old and qualifying it in the same sentence is different than just dismissing them as a rabid fan, you have to admit!:)
Anyway
I came to your talk page because I was interested in bringing Jivesh's canvassing up to WP:ANI but I know you've already warned him. His response, as you know, was My conscience is clear, and continues to to invoke allies and make everything petty and personal. I think it would behoove us all if he was off Wikipedia for awhile. He's young: He could spare a year or two to absorb all the feedback he's gotten instead of just firing off excuses and defenses and forging on like Wikipedia was some type of videogame.--Aichik (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any evidence that he's canvassed since the warning? The case in hand is borderline enough that it would be hard for me to justify a block, and you aren't going to get anything accomplished at ANI besides bringing a lot of attention to your own misbehaviour. Feel free to give it a shot, but I would read WP:BOOMERANG over very closely first.—Kww(talk) 19:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kww. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 15:57, 4 March 2013 (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.
As I say, I'm not really very confident in PHP (especially for wiki stuff) so have a play around with that suggestion, and let me know if it works. - Kingpin13 (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Chartbot made a mistake on a link here. The new Billboard pages are so bad! Thanks for trying to fix it. It looks to me like Billboard's changes were so that they could add LOTS more advertising. Horrible! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RE:Edit
I wasn't aware that this made no difference. Whenever I've used the template, I use capital letters: I was under the impression that the entry had to match the number on the Billboard artist page exactly, including capitalization. Perhaps actually testing the links beforehand, in hindsight, would have been sensible. Sorry. Actually, if Chartbot is automatically updating all of the BillboardURLs, then that saves piles of time. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing.18:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to add a {{non-free}} to the page but promptly got reverted. I can understand Main cover plus sound clip, but it also includes an additional 3 covers which goes against NFC#3. Can I get your suggestions for how to proceed here? Werieth (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only authorized to replace the bad URLs. If the formatting around the URL is bad, that's a different issue (and to be honest, the parser in this thing is nasty enough without trying to understand the context where the URL appears).—Kww(talk) 00:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I just found this gem from October 2009 when scanning my old contribs. It was the first time ever I wrote on a user talk page, and the first "interaction" I had after beginning on the site. Just a little note about something you many not remember :) — ΛΧΣ2104:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How to add singlechart templates?
As Template:Singlechart is referring to your discussion and on this site, there are many discussions about chart-related stuff, I hope you can help me. I noticed that at the Billboard charts, there are many ones at the moment not being support by the singlechart-template. But I do not know whether you would prefer to add the missing ones or maybe this missing has a hidden sense. It would be great if you were able to explain the creation of such new templates to me when needed or supported... Thank you for looking at my problem. --Ali1610 (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't got it set up for me to select what order it does articles in. I'm doing them in batches of 500 so I can look over the results, and it should be wrapped up in the next few days.—Kww(talk) 15:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And Kevin, I am trying my best to stay calm but I really want to know. Does Aichik have the right for repeatedly asking you to block me? Does he? And I hope his mistakes are not being overlooked. Sales and awards are not important but [[WP:OR|original research] [31][32] and [33] by someone who claims to be a professional editor and who wants to improve this article. I think the next thing I will see coming from Aichik is that Beyonce is promoting obesity just because she endorses the brand PEPSI. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I NEVER requested you to block him. Kevin, you know that the information he added about the pregnancy were unsourced, right? Jennie has already removed them now. And only adding unsourced information is not only an issue, removing sourced content also is. So many of my questions go unanswered. Why? How can being sexy be qualified as an award? This is about image Kevin. If I reverted this edit, everyone would jump on me. What will Aichik say now? That even this user Tvoz is wrong? Like seriously, how can a professional editor (referring to Aichik as he claims to be one) do such things? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is being VH1's #1 Sexiest even notable if GQ, and two other major media outlets already said something similar, Jivesh? The Wikipedia article is NOT a place to pile on your offerings of fan worship. Actually, I wanted to be fair, not delete your work but to move it elsewhere, then in your carelessness you criticize me for it. 2) Original research, ha. It's just plain logic, Jivesh, and you know it. And many others have partaken of this "original research" too everywhere online. If Wikipedia doesn't outright say that 1 +1 is 2, but people make that conclusion, is this also considered "original research"? And Jennie X already criticized me for it, so no need for you to parrot others' efforts to try to make me look bad when what you really need to do is defend your own work on its own temrs.--Aichik (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aichik, our original research policies trump nearly everything, especially in a biography. If you have come to the private conclusion that she committed fraud, that's your business. If you write it as a fact in the article again, I'll block you immediately.—Kww(talk) 15:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kww, Chartbot just updated Saturday Night Glee-ver, and it doesn't seem to have helped at all. The links for the Hot 100 and the Canadian Hot 100 end up on a Glee page, but it's a blank one that offers neither of those charts.
Billboard's conversion seems to be a mess, especially with Glee (formerly called "Glee Cast"). In those cases where I've run into broken links—I don't have time to do a complete fix—I've gone to acharts.us and linked to them that way. The problem with your new template is that we lose the chart week information, which saves time when looking for the charting information (which is used for the eventual replacement citation) for the episode's songs.
Unless this information becomes directly available from Billboard again, or I've missed something key in my analysis, it's probably best that your bot stays away from Glee articles. Any way to do that, short of hand-editing over six dozen articles, which I don't have time to do? Unless you give me a good reason not to, I plan to revert that Saturday Night Glee-ver Chartbot edit. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep an eye out: I don't see how it could be related. 77 articles out of the several thousand the bot has edited isn't a strong pattern. It is weird, though: the pages are in the category, but there's no error on the page and the hidden category list for each page doesn't show it, either. Let's see if the maintenance tonight clears it up.—Kww(talk) 06:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. The problem is that there are nearly 3000 articles using {{BillboardURLbyName}} and {{BillboardEncode}}. Chartbot is adding about 75 more an hour. Still, the number of articles in Category:Pages with missing references list isn't moving very fast. It's at 79. up by two in the last hour. Whatever's wrong, the bot isn't making it worse. If the purge doesn't clear it, I'll follow up at the village pump in the morning. When I said I would keep an eye out, I meant it. I'm watching, and trying to figure out what's up.—Kww(talk) 07:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chartbot
Chartbot just fixed a link on "Dat Sexy Body"; However, the artist it sends it to when you open the link is a different Sasha not this one and provides the Billboard 200 not the R&B/Hip Hop Songs chart. The same thing with Pobre Corazón, it sends it to a blank Divino page. It also updated multiple Ivy Queen song articles which all turn out to be fine. (Two other articles by Toby Love and Gocho also have no problems) It may be since multiple artist have the name of "Sasha" or "Divino". — DivaKnockouts15:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, that I know of they don't have nicknames. I guess we would have to look through Billboard's artist with the names Sasha and Divino. — DivaKnockouts16:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's really clear that you don't understand the difference between drawing a conclusion and reporting the contents of a reliable source. You can use that article to report about media speculation, but you can not use it to state that the bump was prosthetic or that it deflated.—Kww(talk) 15:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so haughty. I didn't say it was PROSTHETIC, but something had DEFLATED. So you are saying nothing has deflated here? Or are you contesting E! as a source?--Aichik (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
E! did not make a categorical statement about the contents of the video: they phrased their comments in the form of questions. I'm saying that there is no statement from a reliable source that something deflated, and your opinion about what the video contains is irrelevant. You cannot include your opinion about what you see in the video in a BLP.—Kww(talk) 17:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
just wanted to thank you for explaining why my edited was deleted becuz it wasn't explained properly why it was deleted at first I will take your advice and go to sandbox
thx again-diamond oracle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamond oracle (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be an error in Chartbot regarding its conversion of the old Rap Songs references (an example of which is at Gucci Mane discography). It appears to be converting them to "Rap Airplay", which seems to be an error regarding the changed chart code for Rap Songs: the code is not 370, which appears to be the new "Rap Airplay" code, but is now in fact 1222. Chartbot seems to be making these changes incorrectly presuming that 370 is still the code for Rap Songs, when it is not. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing.09:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Organizational Logos".
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Can you please (1) not stalk the editing I do (2) explain your problems before you start deleting work (3) if you have a problem with a photo, delete that and not the text. I have got no idea what your problem is with the photo because you haven't explained anything clearly, or done anything to remove the photo from Wikipedia. I also don't really mind on the photo, except I do mind your haughty uncooperative behaviour. Get some manners, please. Wikidea12:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of my functions as an admin is to verify the edits of people that have demonstrated a poor understanding of site policy. I will not and can not stop doing that upon request. Assuming that you are discussing this edit, I think the edit summary is pretty clear: that images is licensed as CC BY-NC-SA 3.0, meaning that it cannot be used in commercial applications. Wikipedia is licensed as CC-BY-SA, meaning that the content is freely reusable in commercial applications.—Kww(talk) 14:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate it if your self-interpretation of your functions led you to be more helpful and cooperative, instead of your apparently enjoyment of playing the big ol' tough policeman. And don't patronise me - I understand the policy, and we disagree. I don't insult you by saying your understanding is poor. Show some respect. Wikidea15:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, as your edit shows, you deleted the text as well as the use of the photo (your explanation is not clear for people, like me, who are not familiar with licensing code jargon). This is not helpful, and obstructive. We are entitled to expect better from people who become administrators. Wikidea15:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being patronising. Your battles over NFCC issues with multiple administrators in multiple articles demonstrate that you don't understand the distinction between fair-use under copyright law and Wikipedia's NFCC. Efforts to explain it to you have resulted in you accusing everyone else in the discussion of being obstructionists or jerks, so I see no reason to believe that further explanations will be helpful. In this situation, I will verify the license of every image you insert in relation to its content until I'm satisfied that you are generally getting it right. If you ever want to politely discuss why our policies are more restrictive than fair use, I can do that, but I will continue to remove violations on sight. As for deleting the caption under an image: of course I did. The caption is intended to describe the image, not be a part of the article. If you are putting critical text under images as captions, don't blame other editors for not noticing that you had neglected to make the same points in the article.—Kww(talk) 15:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I've misunderstood this copyright code stuff again, but Kww, am I right that you just had Wikipedia copyright policy explained to you? If so, feel like offering an apology? Wikidea00:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Made a small mistake, that's all. The license is currently CC BY-NC-SA 3.0, but it was available as CC BY-SA 2.0 in the past. Since a license can never be revoked once given, the attempt to make it stricter is ineffective. My ego isn't on the line over this stuff.—Kww(talk) 00:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your chartbot is not correctly replacing the links to year-end-charts, as it seems to me. At Everytime We Touch (Cascada song), it did replace the link
Without naming the page, the chart will not start at position 31... it is not really an error because there has only be made one click to get the correct position, but it is a misfunction. Maybe you can fix it. --Ali1610 (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The logic to deal with multi-paged articles is more difficult than one would think, and it jumps around: sometimes they put ten on a page, sometimes it's twenty-five. I thought about it, and decided that it wasn't reasonable to implement it.—Kww(talk) 21:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed it at this site by myself. If you think the link correction is okay in this manner, I will not argue against it because it´s just a trifle. --Ali1610 (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Chartbot worked properly on its change to Michael (Glee), but Billboard has changed the "biggest jump" function. (It's the "order=gainer" parameter at the end of these particular URLs.)
Before, those songs that jumped onto the chart were listed first, and then those that moved up within the chart. Now, the songs that entered the chart for the first time, even if it was at a greater move than any within the chart, are not listed at all. Unfortunately, for my purposes, that makes this function useless since I'm interested in songs in their first week on the chart, but that isn't an issue with the bot. Still, it's a functional change that's going to affect a number of articles, since the data being referenced may no longer be there.
I thought I'd let you know, though I can't imagine there's anything you can do about an internal Billboard methodology change. I think I'll be using acharts.us instead, since they reliably show the entire Hot 100 in the US and in Canada. Thanks for your work on the bot. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for Chartbot's fixes!
Maine12329 has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appétit! †
Hi Kww! Thanks for your fixes on The Voice (U.S. season 1) and 2, was gonna fix them manually but haven't got around to doing them .__.;; If you're free can you help me with fixing the links to [[List of charted singles of The Voice (U.S.) Thank you very much! ⊾maine12329⊿talks@wiki06:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kww. I think it's fantastic that you're doing these Billboard updates in album articles. Looking at a couple of George Harrison albums, I notice that the update for The Concert for Bangladesh worked out, but not the one for Living in the Material World, for some reason. Either that or I've just missed something on the linked page(!). Thanks, JG66 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it's a bot, not a miracle worker. It can find the link translation, but cannot guarantee that the information that you were trying to verify is still there. For the "gainer" links, Billboard seems to have changed the definition for how an entering album is treated, so the results are a bit iffy. In this case {{BillboardURLbyName|artist=George Harrison|chart=Catalog Albums}} (which yields https://www.billboard.com/artist/george-harrison/chart-history/catalog-albums) would work better for finding you the information you need, but the bot cannot figure out the context for that.—Kww(talk) 18:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You May Be Right (song) - Protected Status?
I saw that you had given temporary protected status to the Billy Joel song, "Don't Ask Me Why." I would like to recommend giving the same temp protected status to the Billy Joel song "You May Be Right (song)." The song is vandalized constantly (and probably by the same user, with different anonymous IP addresses. And I'm tired of undoing it over and over. Thank you for your help! Jpcohen (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to think if it is reliable or not since it is the only legal song/album store in the Philippines. Junixers (talk)
A Nobody ...
... has been editing from the Kent State IP 131.123.123.136 (talk·contribs) since the rangeblock that was imposed last September expired. (I believe all the edits from that IP since Feb. 11 are by him.) Normally, I'd just let those seven edits slide without making a stink about it, but I don't know—and don't know how to check—whether he's been editing from other Kent State IPs as well. Is there some way of checking whether he's been editing extensively from the range? Deor (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was sorry to hear about the lack of sympathy you got from Billboard. It is an unfortunate and exploitative relationship when a company has leave to disrespect its fans. Blue Rasberry (talk)19:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Rihanna Rated R.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Rihanna Rated R.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Demi (album)
I don't understand why u deleted everything, because the title is confirmed even by herself. Can you please re-open my page.
There are allot of upcoming albums that has a page without having a tracklist, the most important thing is that there's a official date and title.
Singlechart templates
I have some question referring to the singlechart-templates.
1.: Is the Official Streaming Top 100 from the UK a chart that can be added in articles? It uses neither sales nor airplay as a base, only internet streaming,ut they have a regular archive since 2009 along with the normal single chart and the regional charts of Scotland and Ireland. What do you think?
2.: You said here that an automatic link is not possible, but I think it is... the link is in the format http://www.zobbel.de/cluk/130316cluk.txt where the first two numbers are the year, the next two are the ones for the month and then there are the ones for the day. do the chart should be able to create so that we can use the parameters |year=yy|month=mm|day=dd or |date=yymmdd , and the database is accessable since http://www.zobbel.de/cluk/050115cluk.txt (the first one I have found, it is possible that there are earlier ones, but the one from 2005-01-08 is not available). So can you please add this or did I maybe forget something? ^^ -- Ali1610 (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Official Streaming Top 100 is a fine chart, but you need to manually archive it, because it is not archived every week like the other charts. I agree that it's technically possible to link to Zobbel in that fashion. Do you have any reason to believe that they are a licensed chart site?—Kww(talk) 19:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So can you then please add a template with the Streaming Top 100 if possible? It seems that it is regularly archived since May 2012 (see here). The other question is not possible to answer so easy... chartstats.com was not licensed and was able to provide their information for some years and nowadays though the chart removing some of these data is available. And as far as I can see, Zobbel runs since 2005, these are eight years and if nobody of OCC was interested in this until now, I do not think something will happen... And all information there is correct as I can see. This is the biggest reason to believe it is licensed or at least tolerated. Your opinion is different? -- Ali1610 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ukstreaming has been added to {{singlechart}}. I'll have to think about Zobbel. So far, I've kind of ignored Zobbel: I don't take it out, but I don't put it in, either. I'm not eager to put it in singlechart, especially since I'm able to retrieve nearly everything from an official source. How important are these extremely low positions anyway?—Kww(talk) 20:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a really big difference if a song has never charted officially in the UK or if it was at least at position 150. You can see that there are people who liked this song and that is was bought there. Otherweise you could say that there has never been any hint that this song or artist has played any role in the UK. It also is important to see that a track maybe peaked at #101 so that he failed to enter the Top100 very closely... And the UK is a big music market, a position 100 there is more important than maybe a Top20-song in a small country. --Ali1610 (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
its the same one that has always been used, and is currently used on m. Jackson, History past, present and future album page in the intro where it cites 20 million sales or 40 million units, this is the same exact source someone put there,
and if it was good enough for the album page then ???,,,--65.8.188.32 (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
technically speaking,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,best selling album
technically speaking,,,,it does seem that the writer of the news article did take aspects of Wikipedia into account when writing that piece. Having said so to what degree do we hold another party accountable, if we did not take part in the writers
(Ghana news) decision. In any case, in the end, I believe you are correct.,,,,,,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heart Attack
Thank you. I'm not trying to cause problems. I just want what's best for the article. It appears that Status opened a topic on the talk page yesterday. I wasn't aware of that. I left comments there. Hopefully we can resolve this now. :) --Thevampireashlee (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Can you please help me a bit by controlling the article User:Ali1610/ItaloBrothers I want to move into namespace soon? I´m not sure if this is what an article should look like as it is the first English wiki-article I´ve written. Maybe something very important is missing or maybe there are also stylistic mistakes? I would be happy if you can help me. Or if you know somebody who can ^^ --Ali1610 (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, I'd appreciate knowing what you think of this discussion at ANI. I'm not asking to get you to agree with me, but you're more experienced than I in socking in all of its permutations, so I thought your opinion would be of value. It's complicated, so if you don't have time, I understand.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May I have your "views" on this?
According to you, how far is the language or should I say certain selection of words being used here acceptable? Especially what do you think of this? If you are not able to spot what I want you to see, it is calling someone a cantankerous husband. I hope I don't have to remind you what (s)he called me a few weeks ago? Kevin, I really think it is time to stop over-looking someone's mistakes by continuing to behave sympathetically with him or her otherwise this will never stop. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK Kevin, I did not mean to upset you. It is just that it frustrates me to see how he narrowly escapes everytime. But I know you are right in your place. Take care. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, Décolletage , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — btphelps(talk) (contribs)15:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FOJ sock
Hi. I know you were previously involved in dealing with sockpuppets whom I suspected to be Fragments of Jade (I was partially wrong, when almost all of the IPs blocked back in 2012 were actually used by a different person than FOJ), but can you take a look at this SPI report? It appears to be the same IP range from where FOJ lives (Pennsylvania) and it is in the 76.120 range. She often changes her IP addresses, such as the one where her Yomiel account was blocked back in April 2011. Isn't it time to give her a range block? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nageh
Kevin, I find it overly frustrating that a user is allowed to accuse me of things I didn't do, claim that I called his image removal vandalism which I didn't do at all, and then getting warned by you because I reverted the user on my own talk page, which I have every right to. If that is the way ANI is supposed to work I am already regretting it having taken up WP editing again. Have a good day. Nageh (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite and infinite are rather the same, since indefinite blocks' expirations are "not definite", as in they can somewhat be considered similar to infinite. ZappaOMati03:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Holistic Management International
In my opinion you improperly deleted Holistic management international. First of all, there were more keep votes than delete votes. Second of all, both strong deletes were early in the debate before the article was edited. By the time you deleted it, the article had many references including 3rd party, plenty enough to establish notability by wiki guidelines. Redddbaron (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong or weak, there were more keep votes than delete. 4 keeps 3 deletes and a couple redirects or merges. And not every reference has to establish notability. The couple early references were on the beginnings of HMI, when the organization likely wasn't notable. The later references that were also added later (by me and others) establish that the organization is notable now.Redddbaron (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on the transformation of normal links into the single- and albumcharttemplates and it is sometimes very difficult. Would it theoretically be possible that a bot can be written who is replacing these links when several information to a special chart is given, for example year and week? Of course this would only be possbile half-automatic because somebody would have to check the new templates for errors or false reflinks... --Ali1610 (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Ah, before I forget this: I answered you at my talk page ^^[reply]
I'm working on a script that, given the title and artist, will output a complete chart table for all the Hung Medien and Billboard charts. Give me a few weeks.—Kww(talk) 22:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent comments at IBAN talk
Hi Kww, in relation to your comments at Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#RfC:_Interaction_ban_clarification, I don't believe you are in possession of the backstory behind this story (WP:CGTW #8 should give some indication), and in my past dealings with you, you are able to look at issues objectively, and I believe if you knew what has and is occurring at that discussion, you would likely be of a different opinion altogether, and you would be left wondering why this has been allowed to occur. Contact me if you want further information, which I will be happy to provide to you. Russavia (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request for undeletion of article Rajesh Bhola
The article Rajesh Bhola has been susequently supported with many more pertinent references to establish notability of the subject. All references are sourced from reputed newspapers and certification by United Kingdom Accreditation Service. The article may be considered for restoration.Shale123 (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Out of interest, do you happen to know if there's a French singles chart archive for positions prior to 1994? Although lescharts.com is very accurate and of proven reliabilty, it only goes back to this 1994, and the archive on the SNEP website only goes back to July 2001: I've been trying to search for Pink Floyd single positions to add here, and most of them occurred before '94. I spotted this at InfoDisc, which isn't listed here, claiming to list the single positions from August 1955 to December 2009, in a similar layout to their albums archive. However, whilst the accuracy of InfoDisc's albums archive seems to be perfect when the positions it lists for certain albums are identical at both InfoDisc and lescharts.com (see Nelly for an example) the singles positions do not match at all in many cases in both archives (in Pink Floyd's case, compare "Take It Back" and "High Hopes"), and even seem to list positions for songs not released as singles at all, in the days before digital downloads made this possible (see "Shine on You Crazy Diamond" and "Pigs on the Wing", as well as their chart dates). As a result, I seriously doubt its reliability.
If you know if InfoDisc's information is reliable or not, or if there is a better archive for positions before 1994 that I have missed, I'd greatly appreciate your help. If not, I'm sorry to have bothered you. Keep up the fine work! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing.12:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curacao Gambling Comission
Hi Kww,
You have undo my post about gaming license on Curacao. Where you seen promotional content? This is very important information about Curacao Economy Sector since this is very common jurisdiction for gambling licensing. I think this sector of economy really is more important as prostitution.
I strongly believe that this section should be present in Wiki.
You just blocked User:Jonsonsmith for sock-puppetry. Could you please look again into this matter?
The reason I ask you to do this is because I am currently in a conversation with him at the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel, where he came to seek for help. The first thing I did then was to warn him to not edit from multiple accounts and that it could lead him to be blocked, and he said he would not do so any further. Assuming good faith, I am very confidant that he was not aware of how strict our sockpuppetry rules are (and most probably not even aware that it was not legal do create multiple accounts). So would it be possible for you to unblock this account with only a warning?
Hi Kevin, I just noticed that you protected Hannibal because of thatIP editor who preferred a simple apostrophe to denote possession for a name ending in s as opposed to apostorphe-s. That's actually a stylistic preference, not a grammatical error, so the back and forth between you and the IP was a good faith content dispute in which you both apparently thought the other was introducing an error. Since you were the editor who was opposing the IP's edit, it's probably not a good idea for you to protect the page over this. Would you mind unprotecting it and bringing the issue to another admin's attention or Requests for Page Protection? davidiad{ t }04:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I'll respect your judgement on the protection. I actually think the IP's edit should probably be made since MOS:POSS rightly prescribes that a page should be consistent in it's treatment of terminal s possessives: the other such words in the article have the simple apostrophe. I won't make the IP's edit for him, but since the style used elsewhere on the page has used the simple apostrophe, Fabrius shouldn't be treated differently. Thanks again for the speedy reply. Later,davidiad{ t }11:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi do you know what happened to the Billboard charts? Eg. #349 (European Hot 100) is gone. How long has it been like this because I only just noticed. Till13:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is odd because I just looked at it for other artists, whereas for the Sugababes and Girls Aloud it's not there. Till13:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But why would they do that? The positions are virtually unverifiable now. Are there any specifics that you could show me because all the one's I've looked for are gone (although I did archive a few with WebCite) Till14:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to mention that the European Hot 100 has gone completely. Also old positions are not accessible anymore, as that happened with the ones from Cascada, too... The corresponding Yearend-chart is though available... I cannot understand what Billboard is doing. Completely Not. --Ali1610 (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you were the blocking admin I wanted to bring IP 108.94.64.165(talk·contribs·WHOIS) to your attention as possibly TheREALCableGuy evading their block under an IP, a trick they've pulled before in previous blocks. What leads me to it is that they had two images flagged for deletion on TRCG's userpage, but then in the IP's log, they've removed the orphan templates, and somehow both image issues at WJZY and XHDTV-TV were taken care of by the IP, along with other edits like at G4 (TV channel) and The Cleveland Show where TRCG has been in conflict before with other users. I really hate to flag this behavior, but judging from past experience where I've noticed past blocks from them ignored and block time added on for IP evasion, it's obvious TRCG just doesn't get the point. Nate•(chatter)01:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user is edit warring and has reverted me 3 times on Mariah Carey's 14th studio album. Can you restore the re-driect back to Triumphant (Get 'Em) please. I see you blocked him the other week. Instead of me reverting for a third time I am asking you to intervene now, as he clearly doesn't understand that the article is not notable enough. — AARON • TALK 22:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Warning only at this point, but it's a pretty blunt one. If I see him undo a redirect on that article again, he will be blocked without further warning.—Kww(talk) 22:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally throw an NPA4 warning on the user's talk page but since I am the target of the user in question I am not sure how to respond (reference this comment) Thanks, Werieth (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beyoncé Knowles GAR
Hello,
We've come to the point in which we've resolved the GAR issues of Beyoncé Knowles, and as the assessment has exceeded 4 weeks (now 4 months), I was going to close it, but after discussing this with Aircorn we thought it would be neutral if somebody else did. As you haven't been involved in the process, could you close the reassessment for us? Thanks. —Jennie | ☎14:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just see the references in other articles and use them. This reference from Italy I saw in the song "Stay" by Rihanna, the reference from Romania I saw in "Diamonds" by Rihanna. I think if this references can be used in these songs, why can not it be used on other items?. Sorry for what happened. I didn't know. But don't threaten me or I'll report it. Ok? You're so obsessed with me.
PS: You should look for these articles and others too. You're so so so good, right? They are full of ... how you say... "false references.". XOXO
We may contest for another, but that's for article content. I know we do not have any personal conflict, nor do I have. This message to clarify myself!! --AsceticRosé05:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
UTRS Account Request
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. —Kww(talk)
.jpg)
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
