Hello, Power.corrupts! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! --Jza84 | Talk 18:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your homosocratic interaction about the word, homosocratic. You my friend are truly a homosocratic individual deserving a homosocratic barnstar. As soon as homosocratic meets Wikipedias standards as a word, I will create one and award you with it. Thanks.
Medizinische
Not a native speaker, however, Medizinische, as an adjective, should be lower-case, even in a title in the usual German style of capitalization. However, it seems that the capitalization is acceptable, and more importantly, accepted by "wmw", in English, so as you see, I have switched it back. And as for the "nonsense", you are quite right, it's not a literal translation. I do suspect, though, that there is a typo (or "scan-o") in the quotation, and that "irrelühren" should be "irreführen", meaning misguided. The quotation calls the theory of hand-washing deceptive or misleading, which is what the translator was indicating by "nonsense". - Nunh-huh
Sorry, but I had to delete that painting of Semmelweis surrounded by students; as you surmised, it was indeed by Robert Thom. The painting is from 1961, and Thom died in 1979, so there's no way it's public domain. DS (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Chernobyl control room.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Chernobyl control room.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 05:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noted the image was non-free, because then the image must meet Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Use of the image on Wikipedia would probably meet fair use criteria per United States Copyright law, but the image does not meet WP:NFCC#8. The second hald of the explanation on the closure reason say ". . .and there is no commentary in either article that the image is used in that supports the reasons given to keep the image." Non-free images used in the body of the article need to have sourced text in the article commenting on the significance of the image. A recent example is The Stepford Wives (1975 film). The three images in the body of the article were up for deletion as they were just decorative. The image, the caption and the text really had no connection to each other then being from the same movie. The authors reworked the text and captions to make the images significant to the article. That may not be the best example, but it gives you the idea. -Regards, Nv8200ptalk19:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the exhaustive and constructive answer. I now understand your use of "non-free". It's a simple task to add a commentary in the Gudrun article text. Could you restore the image for me to add that commentary. The image's contribution to the Himmler article may be less significant, so I suggest only to have it on the Gudrun article. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if we could close this issue soon. Now a different user is acting on what appears to be a technicality. The discussion on the image is spread on this page, my page, the deletion review (which is closed and therefore cannot be ammended). Power.corrupts (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The photo you put on the cherynobl Disaster page is not the control room for reactor number 4. It is actually a scaled down Image of the control room of reactor Number 3 from The August 1994 edition of National Geographic dedicated to Soviet pollution and the effects of Cherynobl. Here are some examples that the photograph is not reactor number 4 and it is post soviet. If you look at the top background you will see that one of the lights in the ceiling is burnt out and it is flurecent. The thing is that reactor 4 was a very new reactor when it went online and it would be very unlikley that it would burn out after several months. Another example is that in the background, you can see a 90's era computer resting on a desk. Not only were computers like that nonexistant in the Soviet Union (if not the world) but also that it would be very unlikley that the Soviets would use a external software system in order to control a fairly new computer. If you look at pictures of the ruined control room and this one, you will notice that the button paterns do not match and is smaller than the control room of number four. So if you could, please delete this image in order to avoid confusion. There are no known photos of The reactor 4 control room just like there is no video of the origional Explosion. This is not my real account but when I typed this talk I was not logged in at the time.-Regards RezaShah4—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.235.190.145 (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are ... largely oblivious to the underlying paradigms that shape our understanding of the world
This (link) is an excellent observation. Perhaps we should try to make a list of the most commonly-believed paradigms. I'll start, if I may. We all believe that that physical laws are invariant. That is, if gravity pulls downward on objects in flight (heavy ones like cannonballs, I mean) it's not going to suddenly stop doing so. We expect continuity, and it's part of our "scientific faith" (to coin a term). At any rate, it's certainly part of my scientific faith. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Knopperdisk is a distro that in 2007 released the last version, and you can see in distrowatch the historial, i don't my impresion is that article remain, thanks Shooke (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really like what you implied here; I PROD shin-bang not because it was easy to do so, but because I genuinely believe this is an unencyclopedic slang dicdef for which no reliable secondary sources could exist. But given the fact that a few people will inevitably suggest it can be cleaned up, I won't be nominating it for deletion. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand very much what you are saying. But you had not provided any reason in the PROD template and I found the page potentially useful. Worse, I had just come across PRODs of characters of the Doonesbury comic strip, argued in "no real life notability", a Kafkan argument that had lowered my civility treshold. I have attempted to pay penance by adding a new reference to the Shin-bang article from a sports magazine, and I will think more than twice, drink some water etc, before doing so again, if ever. Appologies. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I hope I have explained myself more thoroughly now. I came across the article through WT:MED among a pile of nonsense articles, which might explain my lack of motivation. Thanks for your explanation, cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
The Socratic Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Power.corrupts, for his defense of the defenseless in a time of need, and for his intelligent arguments and insightful quotes. Thank you Ikip (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At a recent AfD discusion, you argued in favor of keeping a Kanjivellam -- the Malayam word for gruel made with water and rice -- a separate article from Gruel. Articles must demonstrate notability (which I think this one has not) and be based on reliable sources. So far, the only "reliable sources" that have been found are a history of a religious community, which mentions it once in passing, and a press release from an Indian charity which mentions it as an example of a food they feed to sick children.
eh. it's a stub for a semi-non-notable coaster that may or may not be notable. I've seen worse. Won't affect me one way or the other if it stays or goes, as the article currently sits. Thx for sharing. SpikeJones (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I saw that you deleted the PROD tag from Ya’akov Banai. I originally tagged it, and did so because it did not meet the criteria for [[WP:NOT|notibility], namely that there has not been any coverage of the subject in reliable sources on the internet. Do you have any you can reference and add to the article? Bladeofgrass (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pinky, it was only to keep you informed, as I had earlier indicated to you, that I would take this to DRV. I'm not requesting any specific action from you Power.corrupts (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pages are not intended to be links to other sites, whether language wikis or other. You need to write a stand-alone article, perhaps translating from the Italian version. jimfbleak (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article creator has probably been unaware of that wiki policy and just wanted to contribute. I merely checked for notability and found a similar page on the Italian wiki, town etc was matching, seems to be a notable archeological building of sorts. So I just added the link to the Italian page, for other editors to continue from there. Bottom line is though, that there is enough context to identify the article's subject. A speedy delete seems clearly inappropriate. Of course I could translate some text from the Italian wiki, but why shouldn't we leave that job to some other editors Power.corrupts (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the bad-faith comments here, especially give that your edit comment (as I demonstrated in my AFD nomination and in the the fact that this had been previously deleted) shows your removal of the Prod tag was poorly argued and hastily done. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PROD removal: Can you pls add the relevant notice?
Ja, ja, jeg er overbevist om at jeg har en god sag, nu prøver jeg at skaffe grundfast bevismateriale fra slovenske redaktører, og så håber jeg at kunne få disse sletteglade folk til at æde deres ord i sig igen. Et er, at jeg ikke kunne finde referencer på det kongelige bibliotek i København, det var vel forventeligt, men jeg havde regnet med at kunne finde noget på det nationale bibliotek i Prag, de er beslægtede, både kulturelt og sprogmæssigt. Det kan sagtens være på grund a mine sprogvanskeligheder, da jeg kun taler et gebrokkent tjekkisk, substantiverne bøjes efter syv casus, og det volder mig store vanskeligheder. Artiklen selv er uden stor betydning, men principperne er helt grundlæggende, og jeg vil køre den videre, hvis der er mulighed for det. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have received your inquiry on the dish Bezgovo cvrtje, which means the food is fried in oil. Bezgovo cvrtje is a Slovenian national dish with elder berries. Berries are wrapped in dough and fried in oil, served with cranberry compote. I have found some recipes but they are all in Slovene. If you could tell more specificaly what would you require, I might get some more info from certain proffesors of Ethnology at our University. Katja
I don't understand your brief assertation "Notability; unencyclopedic". It is pretty obvious in the two-line article that it's a newer version of EN 50102 - so I've requested a tech deletion and a page move instead. IMO - it's as encyclopaedic as it gets Power.corrupts (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about the same article? It's been deleted now, but the one I tagged had no references, no introduction, no links to or from it and no possible claim to notability. . . Rcawsey (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say for sure, now the history is gone. The info was in the text, but it was not wiki-linked. Copied the short text of the last version to the talk page, just for the record, if you want to check it, but it's all history now. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty rough greeting you offer this newcomer. Only 15 minutes after sHe created this page, you delete the text outright - touché. After two attempts of recreation, perhaps attempts to improve it, you move in for the kill with your sysop-privileges, and protect the page - le coup de grâce. No attempts to explain what you are unhappy about, no help, no communication whatsoever. What happened to WP:AGF? - and to WP:DONTBITE the newcomers? Maybe you are right that it's a student project (what is wrong with that by the way?) You are right though, that the itemized list was copied from:
Camp, Tracy (2002). "A survey of mobility models for ad hoc network research". Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing. 2 (5): 483–502. doi:10.1002/wcm.72. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), and so was another list of items.
I could find some other sentences, which may have been sampled from other peer-reviewed works, but a large part seems to be the creators' own work. Some encouragement, rephrasing and rearranging may have saved the article, and you could have managed to recruit one/two/(three?) new editors, within the weirdo (but very notable) specialized field of "mobility node modelling" for mobile communication protocols. Wiki sure could need some help here, as many articles on this subject are stubby. I sincerely hope that this is merely an opportunity foregone, that all what happened is that one/two/(three?) students are now disillusionized future Wikipedians, and we won't see them anytime soon. There is a risk though, that your welcome salvo has infuriated them, and thay you therefore have recruited one/two/(three?) future persistent vandals and trolls. We really should welcome new editors. Imagine! They could become future valuable assets. For the fun of it, I looked at your first article Trunk vs Toll waaay back in 2005. REAL crappy first version you came up with there, at least it managed to exist for 59 minutes, before being nominated for Speedy deletion. But you were a very norty boy and removed the Speedy tag yourself (oops), and then improved the article stepwise. Well, gratulations. I would say though, that it still (after four years!) has no references whatsoever, there is no claim of notability, and somebody could think it look just a bit like original research. Man!, nowadays, this kind of article could Speedied anytime. Power.corrupts (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(copied this reply)
I am beginning to think that you like arguing for the sake of it. Facts:
Honestly, I didn't see your encouragement note, because the user was redlinked, I realize I could have seen it in the revision history, because the talk page was not relinked. Only one deleted edit? I consider it very likely indeed that Deeptisen perceived your edits as deletions, while very stricly speaking they may technically not be so, because the contributions are still in the history. What I would have done? I would have put the encouragement note first, shown a good deal of patience, and done the redirect and page-protect later. Your put up your encouragement note 15 minutes after you protected the page, User:Deeptisen may not even have seen it. Certainly, your actions may have spoken louder than your note. Your encouraging(?) comment "I do hope you will find the power to corrupt mobility model with your stuff" here is also ambiguous to say the least Power.corrupts (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. I didn't understand (and still dont) your reasons for "no claim of notablity", as I asked here once. If you replied to this, can you provide a link please. My basic question was, if you dont think that nobility is notable. Again, I have little interest in entering a debate with Polish editors, over troubles with Polish people, based on references that I cannot read. I only intervened, because I felt the arguments were lacking. Technically, you shouldnt re-PROD. If there is consensus with other Polish editors, I dont mind, because the AfD circuit is overloaded. Still, I would like to see a reply to my question. Thanks. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication in text of those two articles that those two families were notable. While the other articles at least made such a claim, those articles are nothing but statements that "such a family existed". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Russian Freedom Fighter (great image!). Quite surprised to see you ran into a block .... I thought you were on wiki vacation (!?) I can see it is the Business Plot page that curtailed your vacation. Seems to be an real interesting story, many references, I might have some time next week to look more into this. The sheer amount of time you throw into Wiki sure justifies that you take a break, enjoying the pleasures of real life - hopefully you will return re-invigorated. You are an idealist and I can imagine your frustrations: while an inclusionist is away, lots of usefull material is deleted by editors that don't share your values, and if the article is deleted, so is the evidence. Not so if a deletionist goes on vacation, the material is still there to delete when he returns, no time issue here. Problematic asymmetry. C'est la vie. Enjoy your break, honestly. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Privet (hi), Power corrupts, Kak Dela? (how are you). And to add to your line of thinking, the amount of effort to save anything on wikipedia is completely disporportianal to those who want something kept, as opposed to those who want something deleted. After 4 years here, I have yet to find a quick and easy solution to countering such disruptive behavior.
Hundreds of hours maybe invested referencing an article (like in the case of Business Plot) in an attempt to make the article the best reference on the web, but all it takes is less than two hours for two like minded editors with a history of disruption, to delete dozens of references and over a thousand words of references, that is why I have an Talk:Business Plot#RfC open about this disruptive and destructive behavior. Ikip (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Paradoxical effects
If you want to attract rabid deletionists at Wikipedia to look at an article, just mention it on my talk page. Myself, I intend to wait and see if it gets nominated for afd. DGG (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles shouldn't lie low, trying to stealth the many deletion radar sweeps. If an article is bad and unsalvable, then it must go. I lean heavily on Wikipedia:Editing policy: "... one of the great advantages of the wiki model is that incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can, over time, evolve into masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing. Thus, even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcomed". This basic policy identifies deletion as a last resort, not the first knee jerk reflex response. (respectfully, I'm not implying that you have this disposition). I am ambivalent (often unhappy) about the PROD process, the decision if a deletion is uncontroversial and therefore suitable for PROD, is quite subjective, the deletion process itself is stealthy and does not at all guarantee even minimum oversight, and the deletion window is horribly short, only five days. Add to this that the evidence disappears, there is no way to ex-post examine if deletion was warranted or not. I'm wondering why deleted articles aren't transferred to a Wiki-dust-bin project, where patient editors could mine salvable articles, especially those articles deleted on flimsy notability concerns. I can't imagine that I should be the first to think of this - do you have any knowledge on prior discussions on this. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Power.corrupts. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I am posting on your page because I notice your interest in Galen on his article’s discussion page. I have myself written a dissertation and published a couple papers on him. I have made some additions to the web page, and have added a lot of comments on the discussion page that I hope will contribute to the communities’ understanding and the article’s quality. If you have any thoughts about this that you would like to share with me, feel free to post them on my talk page under the Galen category. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Cosans (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)]] comment added by Cosans (talk • contribs) 17:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is again being attacked and harassed. Please come help. Thank you.Das Baz 16:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
tumbona
hi power!
abaut "La Tumbona House", in spanish, that word means chair for the beach, but comes from the verb "tumbarse" that means "lay in the floor, or in the shade" The name is not given by Clorindo Testa, but for the owners, as is tradition in Argentina. i hope that helps...--Pruxo (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, just for me to understand this in depth, "tumbarse" can not refer to the breaking of waves, or the waves coming roling in, "las olas se tumban" etc, but ONLY a beach chair? Is that what you are saying? Power.corrupts (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not post any further personal attacks on my talk page. If you had actually read the applicable notability criterion for the articles you deprodded, you would have seen that your suggestions as to notability had already been rejected by consensus. And, Mr "I-have-a-PhD", it's insulting to all the hard working good faith editors on Wikipedia to say, like you did, that checking for sources is "clerk work" that's beneath your PhDignity. And for somebody who calls for other people to WP:AGF, you ought to take your own advice. I did do the checking you claim I didn't. Your behavior bordered on vandalism. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You deprodded this article and posted a snide personal attack regarding me on the article's talk page. You claimed the subject was inherently notable because she was a Penthouse Pet of the month. If you had bothered to read the applicable notability criterion, WP:PORNBIO, and the related discussions, you would have learned that this standard had already been rejected by a strong consensus. If you had bothered to actually follow up the discussions on my talk page carefully,you would have learned that those comments you cite approvingly were placed there by a set of vandalous editors who have been harassing me and other editors/admins who have been trying to maintain Wikipedia standards on articles they're trying to turn into promotional pieces for several of their friends. Example User:POVbattler. A sugggestion for you in the future -- before you go around insulting people who actually take the time to check what they're doing before they edit, DO THAT YOURSELF! Having a PhD doesn't give you the right to attack and insult other editors based on your superficial, unreliable, wild-ass opinions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "I'm not inclined to to do clerk work, searching high and low for sources the nominee could not care to search for himself, in a topic I have no particular interest in." That's a hel of an attitude, and a good reason not to edit the way you've been editing, Dr. Corrupts. An unsourced (and unverifiable) that someone won a medal at an unidentified child's sporting event doesn't even suggest Wikipedia notability. But, as you admit, you didn't even read the applicable notability standard, but posted an uncivil rant on my talk page and on the article talk page without bothering to discuss matters with me. Your PhD doesn't exempt you from WP:CIVIL. It doesn't give you special rights to set your own notability standards either. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd bothered to read the discussions at WP:PORNBIO, which you admit you didn't, you'd have learned that WP:PORNBIO was tightened up last year because articles like this one were considered inappropriate. By a very strong consensus. Why do you think it's OK to post personal attacks on users who actually read discussions and try to apply consensus established standards just because you don't like the consensus results?
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, thank you for your advice regarding the marking of articles for deletion. I have read it through and taken on board your suggestions for future consideration. Regards magnius (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Barnstar
Thanks you so much for the barnstar, I really appreciate it! :) I hadn't even heard of the show before I saw that AfD, but I found tons of reliable sources on Google and I couldn't just let someone delete an article about such a notable series. TheLeftorium19:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lumino Kinetic Art
Seems to me you can delete this page on Lumino Kinetic Ar - or merge it.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. E Wing (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I notice that you have removed the PROD template, with the summary, WP:BLP1E not applicable, clear pass for GNG. Please could you elaborate on why this is so - as far as I can discern WP:BLP1E would certainly seem to apply. The subject is indeed only notable for one event and I can not find any significant coverage since that time; only a few editorial pieces published in the past fortnight. Thanks. ∙ AJChamtalk23:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E is, even as notability guidelines go, an extraordinary subjective and vague affair, it is also often misunderstood - but it clearly does not apply to this article. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Articles that say stuff like "best shopping mall in central INDIA" and "but treasure island is the best of all" is spam. Articles that are in AFD can still be speedied. Joe Chill (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Janet Allison, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Allison. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Well, I'm not exactly alone in that perception. Quoting another editor here:
You must admit it IS strange to nominate for deletion a page included by consensus in a policy which you use against it. Well, strange to the verge of nonsense. The fact that you use that policy means you knew it was an example there, so it IS hard to assume good faith in this case. User:Jeni
Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ·12:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Geo! Much obliged. Yes I am, but following DGG's recommendation I have to do more homework, and I've run into the much lamentable situation, that I sometimes have to do paid work. Family obligations also count, but maybe I can stay up one of these nights. I'll keep you informed. Thanks again. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the correct speedy tag here was R2 (redirect from article space to non-article space), not G8 (page dependent on non-existent page). The error was no big deal, but I just wanted to let you know for future reference. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Australian infanticide
Hi, PC:
I have read an old post of yours in "Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard regarding Question re Spanish" as well as another post in talk:Infanticide. See what I have just written in the section "Rewriting history by blanking out parts of..." in that talk page.
Oh thanks, I'm massively busy in meatspace right now, had an acute major dentist procedure Monday, etc, really no time for Wikipedia right now. Will return. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Medical journal published from 1848-1856. Google search (although less appropriate for such an old journal) only shows WP and mirrors and a few Scandinavian library sites. No indication of any notability.
I have nominated Hospitals-Meddelelser, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hospitals-Meddelelser. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Sorry but I don't any knowledge to add to the discussion on this image's provenance. I wish you luck - hopefully the photographer was diligent in record keeping. Peripitus(Talk)09:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I NOINDEXed the user page. But should you have a userfication of an article deleted for BLP reasons anyway? It might be better to keep it off-wiki for now. Misarxist (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a userified version of the article (I can confirm they are quite different) but rather a new version he created from scratch. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. But did you notice that the article was anonymized in order for non-admins to be able to contribute in the DRV. If there is no name, there is hardly a BLP issue, and no sensitive info for the the NO_INDEX not to index. Some veteran admins at the DRV claim that there is no BLP issue, and not a BLP1E issue. Again, I have no problem with a no_index tag. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(out of sequence) Yes, sorry, there was no BLP problem w/ the version I rather officiously noindexed. And you are certainly doing the right thing by the person in question, apologies again for implying quite the opposite. Misarxist (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the DRV is over and the close said it was OK to make an article on "the case." With your permission, I'd like to go ahead and move your version into the incubator to facilitate the process of rewriting for focus. (Your version is superior to the deleted version.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Now the question is what to name the article. The most logical choice is out, I suppose. The original case was presumably called "State of Georgia v. Allison", although "State of Georgia v. Janet [middle name] Allison" is also possible. Unless you have any immediate suggestion I'll just put it as /Janet Allison for now (the page will be noindexed, so I can't imagine that being an issue) and we can work out the exact name later. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I defer to have an opinion. Many delete-voters expressed that the article was so poorly, diletantly and negatively written - an argument I simply dont get. Most people seem to have been hung up precisely over the title, which, IMO, triggered a Pavlov BLP reflex. English is a foreign language to me, and I would be happy to leave these delicate and trickly issues for a week or so. Would be more than happy to provide content though. Anyway, it's late i my time zone now. I'm grateful for your support and your offer to improve the article Power.corrupts (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved your sandbox to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Janet Allison and un-anonymized it. I will invite a few of the people who seemed genuinely interested in helping work on it to join in. For the record, I do agree that the "grossly inappropriate as a BLP but just fine as a case record" position is rather bizarre. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found the box!
An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. That editor won't actually make any effort to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about.
He plays for an amateur club in a semi pro league, next time please try contacting the nominator before removing prod templates, cheers. BanRay17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article claims he a a "professional footballer". Your PROD rationale was "fails WP:BIO" which is completely misleading (and irrelevant) if your real point is that he plays for an amateur club in a semi pro league. A dePROD on this basis is nothing but expectable. Instead of saying that I should do this or that, you should be more precise in your rationales, this would save everybody's time. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if you'd be interested in looking at the off-topic discussion at Talk:Pumapunku which raises some issues that need debunking in the relevant articles. You may know more for instance about Quetzalcoatl than I do that can be used on his article to debunk this 'white' nonsense. Thanks. Dougweller (talk • contribs) 10:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Maybe I'll look into it, but I'm well outside my comfort zone. I was there by pure accident because I (mistakenly) thought that a Wiracocha article was non-existing, following a lead from a the recently created Pishtaco, which I came by on the Help page etc. - i.e. a random surf trail. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's only any point merging if there's something to merge. In this case the article effectively said that "NewsBreak is a feed reader", something that is spurious in the list article (because of course that's the reason it's in the list article). The article didn't assert any notability at all. Black Kite13:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but sometimes articles are cut short just before being nom for AfD, and anyway nothing at all is won by deleting the revision history, we only make it more difficult to recreate it if more info becomes available. That's why I ask you to restore it, per editing policy, as explained in my first request, and which I believe would be more in line with the AfD discussion, which to me was keep as no consensus. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments
I did multiple searches on Google, accessmylibrary, and BNET. So please stay away from dickish comments like "at the very least you could throw the Spanish Wikipeia page into Google translate" and "Could we please have some more dilligent nominations, out of respect for the AfD process and, not the least, other Wikipedian's time". Joe Chill (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: DRV closure
Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been incredibly busy with the holidays. Xoloz summarizes my thoughts on DRV pretty well in this discussion. DRV is not a vote, but the untangling of the consensus can be trickier than in a normal XfD because of the need to consider policy, content, and process factors in the discussion. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, how can you find sources so easily? There are some articles you found many sources, but I can't do it. How can you do it? Thank you again! Victor Silveira (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, I appreciate the recognition and the star. I dont find sources easily, it's just hard work scraping sources off non-English web resources; I would say disproportionately hard work compared to the ease of nominating articles for deletion and tossing out delete !votes. It can be sort of fun to find sources, but participating in ignorance-driven deletion activities, veiled in WP:N speak, is a source of frustration that takes the pleasure out of contributing to Wikipedia. Too bad, because everywhere I look I see gaping holes in the coverage. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Ignorance-driven deletion activities", rolling on the floor laughing my ass off! Thank you so much for this and for your help with the translation [1][2]. You've turned my Wikiday from utter darkness and frustration to happiness. Cheers! (Ice Explorer (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
You are the one having a problem with this article, you are the one who would rather have other people do the work that your sloppy nominations show you dont want to do yourself, and I'm not your bell boy. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that if you continue to remove PROD's of long-unsourced biographies without attempting to alieviate the sourcing problem, you will likley be blocked. Hipocrite (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, your PRODs are completely mindless, you dont even take minimal care, you dont follow policy WP:BEFORE and I consider your actions vandalism and not covered by ArbCom's blanket amnesty for PAST actions. I dont mind bringing this up in a larger forum. Take your sloppy noms to AfD and you will be slapped. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you're doing is a violation of WP:POINT. There's a large pile of biographies of living people that need to be cleaned up. Please don't obstruct the processing of legitimate prods by removing the tags without curing the problems, unless of course the tagging is a bona fide error. You seem to be the one who is acting a bit thoughtlessly. Thank you for listening. JehochmanBrrr00:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to talk about pointy edits, lets talk about the 500+ BLP pages that were deleted yesterday. which Hipocrite, not surprisingly, endorses fully.[3] I respect you Jehochman for at least acknowledging the need for consensus in those arguments.
The PROD tag states:
"You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page."
Therefore Hipocrite's threat: "PROD's of long-unsourced biographies without attempting to alieviate the sourcing problem, you will likley be blocked." is empty. As long as Power mentions the reason why he is removing the tag, Hipocrite has absolutly no legitimate reason to complain.
We need to work on the PROD template so I'm not about to block anybody over this. However, in the name of courtesy, would all sides please stand down from mass actions of a controversial nature until we all have a chance to finish up the RFC and make any necessary changes to templates and policy pages. A pretty clear consensus is forming so I do not think the delay will be long at all. JehochmanBrrr00:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same RFC which was started because of Scott MacDonald "utter contempt" for consensus? We should not reward disruption.
there absolutly will be no blocks. If anything Hipocrite should be scolded for continuing this disruption. Power Corrupt is only responding to mass disruption.Ikip00:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one making an attempt to solve this unsourced BLP problem is going to get "hammered" for it. People willfully obstructing these attempts may, but those trying to solve the problem will not. UnitAnode03:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I second this warning. The only thing "mindless" here is your unthinking removal of valid PRODs, without even attempting to alleviate the underlying problem with sources. What you're doing is disruptive. UnitAnode03:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've told you once, and I'll tell you again: stop comparing placing PROD tags to book burning. It's a moronic comparison, and is completely without merit. It makes you look bad, nothing more. UnitAnode04:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I consider you calling me a moron an honor, then. Sure, book burning has all sorts of connotations that go with it, but as wikipedia explains, "the practice, usually carried out in public, is generally motivated by moral, religious, or political objections to the materials." Here it is generally a moral objection, though 95% of BLPs are not at issue. People are prodding without even seeing if things can be sourced.--Milowent (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your reading comprehension seems to be lacking right now. Where did I call you a moron? I said that comparing placing PRODs to book burning was a "moronic comparison." It is. UnitAnode05:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per the ArbCom's seemingly passed motion, the current RFC, Jimbo Wales endorsement of the mass deletions, WP:BLP, and previous ArbCom decisions related to BLP: If you continue to remove the PROD tags I will block and revert you. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Power, pay no heed to coffees bullying. Coffee is the editor who wheel warred, unblocking and fervently supporting the administrators who have "utter contempt" for consensus. He then edited a protected page to his version (again ignoring three years of consensus) after an arbitrator said they would desop anyone who tried.
Coffee, is distorting policy just as Hipocrite is above:
Arbcom made no ruling on BLP policy, they asked the community to open a RFC yesterday, that RFC is still open, and has only been open for a day.
Only the community makes policy, not Jimbo, not arbcom. Coffee knows that.
Unfortunately coffee and Hipocrite selectively pick and choose which policy to follow.
Coffee stop bullying editors period. Power corrupts, unlike the editors you fervently support, is following the rules.
It is incredibly hypocritical for you to talk about disruption when the editor you so strongly supported stated "But drama and disruption is far more likely to do some good here..."Community consensus" is something I have learned by bitter experience to hold in utter contempt."[4]
I do have a legit question -- isn't it true that regarding PRODs, "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page." -- one must act in good faith, but de-prodding because one thinks an article is likely sourceable is appropriate, no?--Milowent (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what P.c was doing. S/he was simply mass-removing PRODs. Check the edit summaries. Absolutely no attempt to actually fix the problem mentioned in the PROD message. UnitAnode06:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While perhaps that's not ideal, though there are extenuating circumstances at the moment, it does say "You may remove this message if you ... otherwise object to deletion for any reason".--Milowent (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." pretty clear.
Unitanode, aren't you describing the way you yourself approach PRODs: "Absolutely no attempt to actually fix the problem mentioned in the PROD message." Unitanode, I find it incredibly amusing you are preaching WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Ikip07:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Power corrupts, you asked me to comment. You are indeed waking up into a day after an attempting reversal of Wikipedia practices was seemingly endorsed by arb com. I have stated elsewhere what I think of the actions of both groups. The RfC represents the current state of opinion more exactly, and the impression I get is a willingness to find some sort of compromise that will address the problem fairly quickly without continuing the chaos. Given that we ought to find some situation other than fighting, the best course for everyone is to act carefully. There is what I understand to be a current acceptance by those wishing to delete that they will at least permit the articles to be first examined, and proceed via prod and afd, not by unilateral admin single-handed speedies without a criterion, as they did at first. We need to encourage them to do it. ( I have unhesitatingly unprodded and will continue to unprod where I can find a source, or where I have some good feeling that a source can be provided, but I give such as a reason, not just that unsourced is not a reason for deletion, because some people here are under the impression that it is, however wrong they may be.
I have examined some of your de-proddings. They were every one of them reasonable deproddings--much more reasonable than the original thoughtless proddings The articles give a good indication Sources for them are available. Unfortunately, you did not add them, and in the present climate of opinion that is not effective. Other editors have added some, and I have added one or two myself. I urge you to proceed carefully, by doing this when you unprod. It will thus prevent your actions from being misunderstood. If any of the BLP deletionists object to anything I have said here , I urge them to discuss it at my talk page. DGG ( talk ) 10:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
The Article Rescue Barnstar
The Rescue Barnstar is awarded to people who rescue articles from deletion. This can be independent of or in cooperation with the Article Rescue Squadron.
just say this comment. 5 editors gave Scott MacDonald 5 barnstars for breaking our rules built on consensus which he holds in "utter contempt". (as you have stated also) There were no rules broken here when I gave this barnstar. Ikip01:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removing all prod tags on Wikipedia and voting keep on every AfD regardless of the merits is a way to prevent articles from being deleted. Sadly, those actions would not improve Wikipedia; quite the contrary, and therefore they might warrant a block for WP:POINT. Power.corrupts, do not go on any mass de-prodding sprees unless you fix each article or point out specifically (not some formulaic template) a reason why the prod is wrong (for instance, "references are present, so the tagging was incorrect.") Thank you. JehochmanBrrr13:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly adding prod tags without following WP:BEFORE, i.e. just tagging stuff without making any actual effort to locate and add sources, is a block worthy violation of WP:POINT. Power.corrupts, Ikip, et al., do not allow yourselves to be bullied. It is far more disruptive to delete unilaterally and spam articles with templates instead of pitching in to look for and add sources. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk18:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. If editors spent at least 5 minutes per article searching for sources before prodding, I'd agree to spend at least 5 minutes searching for sources before de-prodding.[6]--Milowent (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. One shouldn't have to spend as much time fixing disruption as the disruptive editor should have spent before doing it. Mindless mass content edits of any sort leave a long messy trail and it takes good editors a long time to clean up after them. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of you, thank you for your comments. Wikipedia is not a very nice place to be, contributors are harrassed, admin elitism and abuse is rife. Let's be cognizant, that content contribution and article writing requires both skill and intellect, deletion much less of those two qualities. In a historical perspective, clerical factions have always developed and "rightously" fought each other, and I'm saddened that it will eventually destroy the spirit of the place, and with it the yet unrealized potential of what this eventually might delevop into. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned
With reference to the recent BLP developments and especially your post here [7], I'm concerned about the direction this process seems to be taking. It's especially distressing that there seems to be no all-user notification for this major issue. Please instruct me how to proceed and how to be involved with this issue. Robert K S (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. I cannot offer specific guidance on what to do. Symptom treatment is possible, e.g. working on the list here User:Apoc2400/Deletion list, but how to actually stop the book burners and the Malice in Wikiland, I don't know. On a personal level I will spend less time here, to maintain my sanity. It's always useful to watch User talk:DGG. Sorry, that's alll I can say. Power.corrupts (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert KS, Power.corrupts ask me to give you some advice.
You could contact all relevant wikiprojects with the following:
Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}, Currently their is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete all 50,000 articles about a living person without references.
The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.
Thank you all for your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. ~~
Let me know if you are interested, I can show you how to do this very quickly, sending a message to each wikiproject in a list in three or less clicks.
List of unref BLP for the Danish project - does a list exist?
yes,
List of cleanup articles for your project
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
We are currently asking for concrete, constructive proposals on how to avoid the deletion of 48,000 articles created by 17,500 editors through sourcing.
You talk about that on mbizanz' talk page. Would you care to explain that to me in a couple of words? I haven't been keeping up with what happens on wikipedia for months; most thankfully, ¨¨ victorfalk04:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No offence to you but it absolutely is a good handle... reminds me of what comes after it: "... absolute power corrupts absolutely." Cheers~! --Dave♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™10:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Just wanted to inform you that I have contested your PROD of this article. I've located two sources (one of them admittedly in Danish) which seem to assert notability of the person. Favonian (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. There is poor online access to Danish media, there is a central database with 30+ mio articles, but the articles and even the search engine is hidden behind a pay-wall. The search interface is "proprietary" and searches are slow. It is peculiar why I had zero hits on this guy in that system, may have been inappropriate use of double quotes, I trying, but cannot reproduce the error. Found some more refs and added to the article. I'm pleased that poor PRODs are picked up by other editors. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the online version of the 20 volume Den Store Danske Encyklopædi, written by a staff of about 4,000 academic experts. Since its completion in 2001 they have experimented with various ways to keep up with IT developments, and they have since 2009 opened up for contributions from registered users. This not make it "another user created encyclopedia", and editorial oversight of content is maintained, anything else would be silly not to protect the original investment in the paper encyclopedia. Could you 1) try to WP:AGF, 2) do basic and minimal fact checking before you post messages on my page, 3) keep Viridia on a leash as I now see that he is reverting my sourcing. And to both of you, try to be helpful, Poul Schlüter was one of our longest serving prime ministers, perhaps you might even add source or two, and Mimi Jakobsen has also played key role in Danish politics. This would be contructive work, as opposed to what you are presently doing. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, I am quite willing to be accommodating. But for your part - I would much appreciate a change in tone and an avoidance of CAPS - it will go very very far towards an attempt at fostering a polite and positive dialogue in the future. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Power.corrupts - Thanks for your participation in my recent successful RfA. Although you reluctantly did not express confidence or trust in me, the community did and as you are an equal part of that community, deFacto your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Beland, I removed your unexplained merge proposal, please feel free to re-propose but remember to add a reasoned rationale for other editors to relate to. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. Yes, I oppose. There is some overlap, mostly because Asteroid mitigation strategies is a large messy affair. I believe that we have enough info to have articles on detection and consideration about avoidance (your recent retitle to Asteroid impact avoidance is clearly an improvement). More to the point, there is enough 3rd party coverage, and enough potential, to justify a separate article on Spaceguard. On a general note, many merge efforts lead to massive clumsy articles, difficult to maintain, and worse, difficult to read to the average hurried reader who has a specific information need. Try to figure out what a Lancet arch is, for instance. I would suggest splitting Asteroid impact avoidance up into sub-articles, leaving it at as an overview main-article, directing the reader to other relevant articles. I regret, I cant afford assistance to this creative task, as I use whatever time I can spend here to source BLPs and do other last minute fire fighting to prevent valuable material from being deleted, this is where my contributions have the highest marginal return on effort right now. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, You was left me message on my talk page. I was investigate again and these links: 1, 2 seems to be that it is right information- they plays in pornographic movies. There are two proofs: Lukas Osladil height=173cm and date of his born (June 04, 1980). You can reply to this disscussion, I will visit it tomorrow. --Zacatecnik (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to adding more BLPs to the list everyday, I have caught other deletion advocates following my tracks and re-tagging articles I had removed them from. The IMDB situation on the talk page is a big chunk of that.Trackinfo (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'm appalled that a number of editors, oh so concerned about poor BLP sourcing, could not dream of lifting a finger fixing issues themselves. "Somebody else", you know, should do it. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Power.corrupts! If there is any consensus at at all, it is that the entire discussion has become a tangled confusion, and as a result both proponents and opponents of the issues under discussion are abandoning ship. None of us want this. It is still not clear which way consensus will fall and your contributions to the discussion are invaluable. However, In an attempt to keep the policy discussion on an even track, some users have decided to start the ball rolling for clarity by creating special workshop pages. The first of these is for the technical development of a template at WT:BLP PROD TPL in case policy is decided for it . The taskforce pages are designed keep irrelevant stuff off the policy discussion and talk page, and help a few of us to move this whole debate towards a decision of some kind or another. The pages will be linked in a way that watchers will still find their way to them. This move is not intended to influence any policy whatsoever; It is to keep the discussion pages focussed on the separate issues. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 08:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the PROD from this article because of the complexity of the situation — when we have a lot of references given for an article, and when we have the possibility that multiple people are merged into one, I think it best to take an article to AFD. I'm not making a statement of "this shouldn't be deleted at all"; it's simply "this shouldn't be prodded". Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
your comment on my talk page
"I just want to say that if you have the time, energy etc, etc, I would appreciate a ping on my talk page in such cases."
I would love too, except I don't want to be accused of canvassing, so I must be careful who I contact, and how I contact them. Okip 02:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Radio-operated bulldozer outside Chernobyl.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Orphaned non-free image File:Evacuation of Pripyat.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Evacuation of Pripyat.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you...
...for your kind words written in the closing hours of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Police. Your points were very well made toward the systemic bias of en.Wikipedia, and it might have been noted by the closer that the nominator's concerns WERE being addressed... despite the fact that in those last seven hours since your improvements, none of the delete votes revisited the article or the discussion. Myself, and in acknowledgement of the everpresent English bias, am at least trying to create and source a spot where the director's films could be listed. And please, you are quite welcome to visit User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Amayo Uzo Philips and make whatever additions and sourcings you are able, for the stronger his article can become, the greater opportunity to finally build upon that long neglected Nigerain film industry. Best, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.22:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added content and refs from newspapers located at three continents. Just retrieved the stuff in my cache: BBC (UK) [8], The Nation (New York) [9], and the Observer (Gambia) [10], probably as good as it gets for a corny, low budget, though apparently hugely popular, Nigerian film. Cirt, the closing admin, said the magical words, The result was delete. "The result" ... (tsk). I'm not genuinely surprised, this reflects the general attitude around here, and he probably gets some sort of weird personal satisfaction from deleting content. Just glanced at his edit history, over the span of an euphoric 5-6 minutes he closed an astonishing 33 AfDs, all as delete. HAH, gross, yeah, beyond pedagogical reach. As I said, I'm voting with my feet, sorry to decline your invitation. Bye. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I randomly ran across your account today, and in the oft chance that you ever again peek at your talk page, THANK YOU for your endless efforts in combating laziness and the trigger happy deletionists who seem allergic to research. Your patience must have been enormous, and I can only hope that a few other editors have learned from your example and managed to continue your efforts. You made Wikipedia a better place. Kudos, and enjoy your hard-earned, hopefully much less stressful post-Wiki existence. Sloggerbum (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Holiday cheer
Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidttalkbackis 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 a newbie, a good friend, someone you have had disagreements with in the past, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Orphaned non-free image File:Heinrich Himmler and Gudrun Burwitz.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Heinrich Himmler and Gudrun Burwitz.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Replaceable fair use File:Mary Douglas (1921–2007) young in Africa.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Mary Douglas (1921–2007) young in Africa.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:50 EURO Gold Coin - Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis - Austria.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:50 EURO Gold Coin - Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis - Austria.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Notability tag for a decade. The first two sources listed are a tabloid newspaper, so probably aren't WP:RS. Very little evidence that she meets WP:MUSICBIO.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi Power.corrupts! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Nepal/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 1 year.
Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Nepal/Members.
){kind=link}
![[6]](http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k225/milowent/somebodycall911.jpg){kind=link}
_young_in_Africa.jpg){kind=link}
_young_in_Africa.jpg){kind=link}
_young_in_Africa.jpg){kind=link}
