Hello ThaddeusB, glad to meet you! I'm Airplaneman. Congrats on passing your RFA :). I was looking at your userpage and saw the "Useful Stuff" section. Can I put that on my userpage, too? It's definitely useful :D. Sincerely, Airplanemantalk04:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. If you are copying it completely, make sure to note the source in the your edit summary in order to comply with our licensing terms. (Something like "adding table copied from [[User:ThaddeusB]]") Our licensing terms apply to all areas of Wikipedia, not just articles, so whenever you copy something be sure to note the source with a link.
I am the PRODder on Cookie dough bites. I would like to talk about this article, and I'll warn you ahead of time that I can be rather blunt, but don't mean to be rude. I'm also a immediatist.
This stub, in my opinion, doesn't qualify to be on wikipedia. It has no references. It's simply a dictionary definition. It only has four sentences that just barely provide context. I think it's just as bitey to let it stay as much as it is to delete it--the article creator might think it qualifies to be in the article space. Userfying it might be a compromise.
I added {{candy-stub}} , along with several tags, and also added the article to the food and drink wikiproject. Hopefully, that will help attract editors that know what they're doing. I dream of horses @ 02:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the PROD primarily because the creator had contested the deletion on the talk page. Any objection invalidates a Proposed deletion. Of he had not objected, I probably would have just deleted it. That said, I do believe the article can be expanded into a full encyclopedia article and have left the article's creator some instructions on how to do so. Another alternative to deleting would be be find a place to merge the material. Merging is usually the best way to compromise on topics that are barely notable like this one appears to be. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. I guess I misinterpreted you deprodding to be a statement that the the article should stay. My bad.
Do you think merging it into cookie dough would be a good idea? I mean, it's not like we would put every single cookie dough recipe on the cookie dough article, know what I mean. On the other hand...well, why not? I dream of horsesIf you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 21:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Always nice working with you. You have a good eye for what is salvagable and an integrity to deprod based upon valid reason. Is there anything you might add to Patricia Lake so I might get it out of AfD? I took what was perceived as a one-trick pony and showed she has an adequate history of notability outside those relationships. Interesting story too... MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you much for the close, as I was only hoping for some input on how it might be made better. Keep me posted if/when something else crosses your path as did Maple Palm that is need of a little wiki-love. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you look into this?
Hey I saw a situation that potentially needs an admins attention. While watching the watchlist I noticed a page I've authored had been changed a few times with a couple of back and forth reverts. I went ahead and looked over the contrib log of User talk:LaurenceColletti and see a long string of reverts between him and another user on a plethora of articles. Perhaps you can help him understand what he was doing incorrect it would help him out a bit. It looks as though he's a new user so it may just be a mistake of ignorance. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to thank you for your clear edit summary and including a very specific redirect template on Locker 239. I appreciate it, I didn't know that specific template existed. Also, congrats on your recent successful RFA. I look forward to working with you in the future. [mad pierrot][tc]23:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few editors keep removing a part of the policy primarily under the leadership of Slrubenstein. It has been explained to him over and over that he's expected to keep it in the policy until there's clear consensus to remove it. It seems some editors are now talking about different subjects instead of the real issue. We can't keep reverting back and forth. Any suggestions? Biofaseflame| stalk 01:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't read through the conversation, but if there is no clear consensus about what wording is best and no reason to believe one will form then yes, a RFC is the proper way to resolve the dispute. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Airplaneman, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Isthmian-Atlantic moist forest has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(remove prod - history has been merged - will cleanup shortly)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
Thank you for finding that LA Times review. My concerns about the film's notability have been alleviated, and I will not be pursuing deletion any further. Good luck with the article! FirestormTalk01:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice
ThaddeusB,
Thank you for the advice. I have been reading the guidelines and I think I see where everyone is coming from. It is good to know that the quality of this resource is being maintained by the users themselves. I had no idea it was such an active community. My intention is to be a good contributor and enhance articles. I think it is best for me to get permission prior to posting links. My passion is the outdoors and I hope I can help others enjoy it as much as I do. Thanks again for the advice.
LaurenceColletti (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ThaddeusB. It's Airplaneman again :). May you please look into this dispute when you have the time? You see, It all began when I was trying to increase the navigability in this subsection. Butterfly0fdoom disagreed with my additions, and therefore the dispute began. It began on the article's talk page but soon moved here. In an attempt to reach a compromise, I decided to revamp the whole section in my sandbox. Butterfly0fdoom approved of it, but now Nja247 did not like it. He said it contained incorrectly used boldface. I formatted it accordingly. Now Butterfly0fdoom disagreed. Seeing that this was going in circles, I tried posting for help in WP:3O, but it was removed after a couple days without any opinion given. Well, since I know I can value your opinion on Wiki-related matters, I came here. More details can be found on the corresponding debate pages (the article's and my talk pages). Please note that you don't have to look into this (please tell me if you don't want to), but if you do, your opinion will be greatly appreciated. I'm also notifying the two others involved in this. Thank you. Airplanemantalk00:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE: Notifications I posted on the users' talks, in case you are interested, are here and here.[reply]
It was removed from 3O because 3O is a "lightweight" process specifically for when only 2 editors are involved.
I think the changes you made in your sandbox are a definite improvement & you should bring them to mainspace now. I will comment as such on the article's talk page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have performed some reconstructive surgery on Anthony Smee. Left a note on the author's talk page explaining N, RS, and COI. As long as no one gets a bee in their bonnet because it is not made perfect within a few hours, it will be emminently improvable if we each give it 5 minutes a day expanding a little and adding a source or two. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tough call. The closest comparison I can think of when be Pregnancy#Sexuality during pregnancy which obviously doesn't have its own article. On the other hand, the concept is notable, even if not independently notable, and I can't think of an obvious place to cover it.
So it's up to you - let it stand or let the community decide via AfD. I have no idea what the result of an AfD might be. (At minimum the title is wrong as it clearly isn't a proper noun :) ) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did see the books coverage, but it's the actual article that's a bit perplexing. It's a pure how-to guide the way it is, it discusses the hows in a personal way rather than a representation of facts. I initially thought of a selective merge to Postnatal, but then the timing of the two don't necessarily coincide. I'll think a little further. cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes05:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Cool Barnstar
The Cool Barnstar Award
I award you this Cool Barnstar. Your continued efforts to keep the encyclopedia growing, in the face of so many who act as if it is complete, is not always an easy task. When editors feel new articles should spring into existance already perfect, in contravention to Wikpedia's knowing that is not expected to be perfect, your efforts let newcomers know that their contributions are welcomed. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you take a look? A few editors have tried to clean up this list to include only blue links and/or possible red links. IPs come back and add uncles and aunts and everyone else they think belong there. I hate these caste based lists for exactly this reason, but I think the list is a legitimate list. Would this be a candidate for semi-protection for a bit? -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes17:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like most the problems are coming from one person. I warned them under their current IP about edit warring and reverted to the notable people only list. If they continue to cause problems, or the article continues to have issues, let me know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thx, the IPs are all dial-ups in India, so it could very well be the same person. This list was related to that "nonsense message" you removed from you talk page a couple days back, I'd just found this list a couple days prior to that and was cleaning up. cheers -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes17:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV
Thaddeus, if you have any doubts, check with Slim Virgin. Most feel th RfC is over and the contentious section in NPOV should be removed. Can you please tend to it as you protected the page?
Some editors want to replace the passage with something new; i am sure all agree that we need to see if a consensus develops for something new. In the meantime I think there is an overwhelming agreement to remove the current section. Thanks for pushing us through a productive process. Slrubenstein | Talk23:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was just about to do that. The page protection and RfC seems to have done the trick with far less emotions being wasted and also made a bunch of other issues come to light. Thanks again for your help and feel free to comment at any time. Biofaseflame| stalk 01:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that your removal of the text on WP:NPOV was not in line with WP:POLL, and therefore not in line with consensus, as claimed by your edit summary. (In fact, it's probably the most deliberate and explicit flaunting of WP:POLL I have ever seen; what with the whole "polls cannot override NPOV" thing) . I'm not going to undo you, because I think we'll still reach a consensus on the replacement, but I don't think what you did would be considered best practice. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I certainly didn't expect a gripe about my removing that text. Virtually no one wanted it. Another admin had already made the same conclusion about the consensus, but reverted himself because the page protection was in place. I certainly didn't see anyone voting and discussion had already moved on to what to do next, under the premise the text was going to disappear. The RfC only focused on should it stay or go - and that is all that I decided on. I purposely left it open-ended about what should happen next so that consensus could form about it. That said, if you think I did something wrong feel free to ask another uninvolved admin how they would have closed the RfC. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough; let's blame the procedure. That's always a good idea, because that way no one gets hurt.
This was clearly a pretty huge collision between current RFC procedure and the WP:POLL guideline. You can't use polls to determine if something is NPOV, but that gets kind of subverted if you can actually just apply the poll to the WP:NPOV page itself, and declare that that has consensus. It's actually easier to change the policy than it is to change certain articles right now. That can't be good. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
POLL means that consensus isn't determined by numbers but rather strength of arguments. In this case, the numbers and strength of arguments both strongly favored removing the material. In fact, I find it hard to imagine a situation where consensus would be more clear than this one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a number of participants had their first edit immediately be a !vote. That usually means you have a a bit of a problem wrt consensus gathering. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can gather it was more an opinion poll from which we have learned a lot to take us forward and not a vote only poll. In any case there is no opposition left, I will strike my original no if that will make it clear but if we want a 100% agreement on any decision nothing will every change so in practice a tiny minority often has to be discarded. Biofaseflame| stalk 04:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not get what you are saying. Seriously do you understand the consensus concept because all your comments about it so far have indicated to me that you don't. The RfC has shown that practically everyone wants it gone and many wants something else in its place, it is as clear a case of consensus as you will see for a long time to come. I just didn't want it to simply dissappear without the concept surviving which would have been the case without the RfC. This seems to also be the preference for a lot of people though many are still confused about what the concept actually is. Biofaseflame| stalk 02:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying I don't understand consensus? Okay, that's usually a bad sign.
Please don't take it in a bad way, we all had to learn somehow. No document will give you the explanation you want. My best advice is to take part in the processes like this one or participate in some AfDs (Articles for Deletion) to see how it works in practice. You'll find this was one of the most clear cut cases of consensus there is likely to be. Biofaseflame| stalk 04:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so you can't show any documents that show that consensus was reached. But I can show you at least one that shows that it wasn't, and that would be WP:POLL itself.
As to AFD, that's a process that needs to get a lot of things done in a limited amount of time, so we fudge things a little. I know I did when I used to close them. ;-) Sometimes, people don't want you to fudge though. At that point you need to respect that; because admins don't have any special magical power that exempts them from consensus.
In the case of our very important NPOV policy, where's the rush? We shouldn't deliberately go slow of course; but shouldn't we actually be listening to each other's arguments and talking with each other to figure out what the best solution is?
Fortunately, a bunch of people are doing just that, right now; (even though the RFC is ostensibly "closed". )
Rather than deciding to delete the section, it looks like the consensus is to replace and improve it; the results of which we should probably be seeing in the next couple of days. I couldn't quite make out what the new wording should be from the poll questions though, could you? O:-)
Why have you deleted Dan Forshaw (musician) wiki article
We have noticed that you have deleted Dan Forshaw's wiki article! The articles do not ALL go back to the homepage, many of the point to articles in published media from published media outlets in the UK (such as Observer newspapers and Johnston Press). Dan has also performed and studies with Branford Marsalis, who is a notable modern day jazz musician, I guess you do not know much about jazz!. We request an immediate reinstation of the article!
Hello, the article was deleted via our Proposed deletion (PROD) process. Someone (not me) suggested it be deleted and no one objected in 7 days time. I then hit the delete button. Fortunately for you, anyone can contest a PROD at anytime, including after deletion. Since you have contested the deletion I have restored the article. However, please note that the article currently has 4 references: 2 are dead links to local newspapers, one is Forshaw's webpage, and the last is a CD review from a site that is unlikely to meet our reliable source guidelines. None of these sources are sufficient to establish notability. As such, the article will need some better sourcing or it is likely to be deleted via the Articles for deletion process, which can't be easily undone. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed the article for deletion. The subject of the article is of no note, although he seems deluded that he is. The person above argues that the article points to the 'Observer'. It does not, it points to the *Watford* Observer, a local newspaper for the small town of Watford, and it is a broken link at that.
The person above argues Forshaw has studied and performed with Branford Marsalis. Firstly, studying with a famous performer does not qualify you as 'notable'. Branford Marsalis, just like many performers, takes on any student who are prepared to pay tuition fees. Secondly, where has Forshaw performed with Branford Marsalis and where and with whom has he performed since? Anyone of note? Thirdly, was the Marsalis performance rated favourably by an international jazz critic? I think not. Having the nerve to turn up to a jam at which a famous artist is performing and having the nerve to walk on stage and busk a couple of choruses of Watermelon Man does not qualify you as a notable.
The bot finished compiling the stats a couple days ago, but I was too busy to write the code to upload the data. Hopefully I will get that done today.
I rather not auto-archive my talk page, but I did go ahead and manually archive a bunch of older stuff today. Thanks for letting me know it was getting slow - I had no idea because it always loads fast for me.--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder that this exists. Several links have been created and it would be nice to get an updated list. No need to implement everything on this run (although it would be nice if the bot at least used the templates I made to generate the navbox), so if updating the code is what holds you back, just run it like it is (if possible, using the templates). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - I'll run it within the next few days with just a couple of the suggested changes made (including using the templates). --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's great that you found references. Now would be a good time to create a reference section and remove the notability and reference tag. Could you do it? Thanks in advance. --Stormbay (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RS Opinion
Just wanted to get your opinion on whether this should be considered a reliable source? I'd reverted addition of that link as a source on Tamil language and opened a discussion at the talk page. However, I later found that the link is used as a ref on other pages too. The link says they use Wikipedia as one source. If a discussion is needed, I can take it to RS/N, but I thought not. cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes02:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly pretty questionable, but I wouldn't say it is necessarily not reliable just because it consulted Wikipedia. They do seem to have concern for getting the info right which means fact checking is likely - a reputation for fact checking, not so much. More importantly though, it should never be necessary to use it as a source, as it appears to strictly be tertiary so the secondary sources it used can always replace it as a reference. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the non Wikipedia source they refer to actually has the numbers matching what the page currently has. I can only imagine that there's some other page somewhere on Wikipedia that lists a different number. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes09:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for merging the content. Please consider in the future to mark on the talk page of the merged article that it is not an article anymore. Regards Hekerui (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for cleaning up for me on this article restoration - I got called away IRL and forgot to get back to it right away. I've since added an {{oldprod}} so it will be clear that the page previously was prodded. Oh, and I see congrats are in order, let me add mine. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done12:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your removal of the prod tag I added on 31 July based on an "I'll get back to this someday" added on 7 July seems a novel way of interpreting a challenge to the prod. Bazj (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake - I got my months mixed up there, thinking the comment was from yesterday, not a month and a day ago. I went ahead and deleted the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page is patently a dicdef, and clearly has no potential for expansion. There is one other article linking to it, and even that is not referring to the subject of said "article". The article was properly tagged as PROD for 7 days, the deprod rationale was that being a dicdef is not grounds for deletion, which directly contradicts WP:DP, which actually says that dicdefs with no potential are valid for deletion. I therefore believe it would be an utter waste of everyone's time to list such an obvious case on AfD. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't said that "dicdef" is a valid speedy. "Expired prod", however, is a valid speedy, and "dicdef" is a valid reason for proposing deletion. If you disagree, tag it for AfD, and create the page (which you'll be well aware that I can't do). 81.110.104.91 (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further to your response at User talk:Colonel Warden, do not deliberately misrepresent the views and actions of others. You stated the "warning" was invalid. The article was prodded with a rationale explicitly listed in the deletion policy as valid, and was deprodded with a rational that directly contradicted that policy. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The warning was invalid - anyone can remove a prod for any reason, as explicitly stated by policy. This is the third time I have told you this. The fact that you disagreed with his assessment doesn't make it invalid, nor does the fact that dictionary definitions are allowed to be deleted invalidate CW deproding this dictionary definition. Also by removing my comment you have invalidly removed my view point from his talk page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's "invalid" to suggest people provide a reason for deprods that is actually in line with the deletion policy as opposed to directly contradicting it? I also take issue with you deliberately mischaracterizing my views. This is invalid under any circumstances. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is my opinion that the warning was invalid per policy because as explicitly stated in the proposed deletion instructions: "To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{prod}} tag from the article." Note the lack of requiring a valid reason. Additionally it goes on to state: "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith." No where does it say anything about users who remove a tag with a rationale that is "against policy" being invalid.
Additionally, I strongly object to your repeatedly accusing with of "deliberately mischaracterizing your views." I don't even know what view I am allegedly misrepresenting, let alone doing it on purpose. As far as I can tell I have attributed any view to you at all. The fact that I think you are quite wrong doesn't mean I am misrepresenting your view. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might you consider...
Perhaps extending a polite word of caution to new accout User talk:Pdsabooks, and working out what is required to change his username? I'd hate someone land on him with both feet and block him for vioaltion of WP:ORGNAME, as he may not be aware that he is in violation. In my search to source an article, I came across this, and realized that even if unintentional, his use of that username is unfortunate... specially since his first article is about an individual who is an author/manager/actor. Are the two entities connected? Possibly. Just coincidence? Possibly. Should they have a chance to address this before the wall falls on them? I think so. From their talk page, it seems they simply may not feel Wikipedia is worth the effort... but maybe not. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and warned him using {{UsernameWarn}} plus a personal message per your request. Really though the normal practice is to just block with a template that explains they can create a new account or can be unblocked if they request a username change. I don't see any harm in a friendly warning though, as it might help prevent the loss of a potential editor. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That was my thought also. Your note makes this a bit less overwhelming... a more of a hospitable place... and might not chase away a potential future contributor simply because of an initial faux pas. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was a simply, uncontroversial change that I'm sure DGG would have no problem with as that is clearly what he meant. However since you want to waste everyone's time, I'll tell him to make the change himself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to thank Thaddeus for fixing my obvious error., as I am grateful to anyone who fixes my typos and other errors, just as they might fix vandalism. Nobody need bother asking. I do not know if others feel that way, but I assume everyone has good faith in doing this. DGG (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think i should issue you an apology because i have obviously misunderstood the role of administrators and i do accept that my comments previously were more critical of the user and not the article. i would just like to state in my defence that since the AfD from march 2009 a lot of things have changed with the album and several months on we cannot even confirm that it is going to be released. All we can confirm is that Eve was planning to release an album called "flirt" and she had worked with many producers etc. Im sorry if it seemed that i was trying to force my opinion on others, i was simply applying my past editing experiences with other AfD. My issue is obviously that i assumed because Beyonce's Broken Hearted Girl was removed as was Nicole Scherzinger's Her Name is Nicole as they are both unconfirmed releases that 'Flirt' would also be deemed to fall under the same circumstances as it also is unconfirmed (details are sketchy). In future i will be more careful to accept that different articles will have had different circumstances and there AfD concensus will be different. If you insist so much on keeping the article open can i suggest that we place a second AfD on it (considering the time period since the last) and let the AfD decide? (Lil-unique1 (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Well first off, something doesn't actually have to be notable to avoid speedy deletion. It merely has to assert importance - "35 international chapters" is certainly a claim of importance. That said, the club/gang is clearly notable. I have posted a couple searches on the talk page of the article to get people started. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the two inadequate attempts to create an entry in Wikipedia for the UK charity and public service, Infosound.
Although I was not comfortable with the original entry being suspected of being a commercial 'advertisement' (as the charity is run entirely by volunteers and is a totally free service), I have to accept your subsequent assessment that Infosound is not noteworthy or of any significance. I would therefore be grateful if you would please remove the entry completely.
The person who tagged it as an advertisement was mistaken. That is why I declined the speedy deletion and converted it to proposed deletion to give you a chance to improve the article. It has since been deleted per your request to do so.
Please know that your contributions are welcome even though this time it didn't work out for you. If you need an assistance, please don't hesitate to ask. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh why have you deleted my page???
I have done loads of modeling. more than louise glover and 2 major films
i want it back please
i am very well known!
ill get my solicitor to contact you.
Your insane
i suggest you read links. Im on loads of celebrity sites!!!!!!
Louise Glover is not a model
or half the people under GLAMOUR MODELS
If you had bother to read the log information that pops up when you view the page, you'd have know that I deleted it as an expired PROD and said "page can be restored upon request, but the requester should be willing to address the following concern: self-promotion by an apparently non notable model." As you can see, all you had to due was make a reasonable request & I would have restored it. Unfortunately, instead you chose to insult me and make legal threats, the later of which is grounds for an immediate block. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see it is going to be a close call. I definitely plan to !vote, but I haven't 100% made up my mind about what I want to say yet. I normally think my RfA !votes carefully and wait till close to the end to decide. I will say that I am currently leaning support, though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there's no need for rushing yourself. It's just that you stopped asking questions and gave no sign of life, so I was wondering if you felt like "you exceeded your question quota" or something to that effect. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since always. Contested PRODs are always restored upon request by policy. Sure, I could take it to DR, but that would just be a waste of everyone's time. From WP:PROD: "Any deletion via this process which is taken to deletion review is implicitly a contested deletion, and the article should therefore be immediately restored by any administrator without discussion." --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. Sorry for being so combative the first time.
I think you moved something from an article where it probably didn't belong into Alien Workshop where it appeared to belong. I have a feeling that you don't have a vested interest in the material, but just wanted to mention that I deleted it, in case you did. Didn't seem that notable to me and more about the media hype than about the company per se. 99% of the stuff I rv is from unregistered users. When from a long-time editor, I thought I should probably touch base. Student7 (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I certainly don't have a vested interest in the material. However, you are mistaken as notability doesn't affect article contents, only whether something should have a stand alone article. It is certainly perfectly reasonable to have a short description of video the company produced within the company's article.
Telecom Expense Management and Wireless Mobility Management
Please send me my article back that you just deleted titled Telecom Expense Management and Wireless Mobility Management. I was trying to create a educational page based on the many requests we get from our prospects and customers at AOTMP. You will notice that I did not ever mention or refer to our company and would not do that. That said, I am not sure why you deleted my page and didn't even give me the opportunity to keep updating it with content that will be very beneficial to hundreds of thousands of people. As I am sure you know managing telecom and wireless services is becoming more and more critical all the time and people are looking for information on it. I could care less about promoting our company but as the founder and CEO of our little $20 million company I am about giving people the information they are continually requesting in what has become a very fast growing and necessary industry. What pushed me over the edge to spend the time to write this article that you deleted was I just spoke to a MBA class at Indiana University as I do three times a year and they asked me why they can never find anything on this, what is becoming a multi-billion dollar, industry on Wikipedia.
The article is on your user space now, which buys you some time. However, it will have to be worked on or it will be deleted again after a week or two
No one would every find the article at the title you had it under
You need to pick one topic and focus on it - as written it sounded like a bunch of loosely connected ideas
You can't copy text from your own website, unless you release your copyright claims on it and follow the instructions at: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials - it is unlikely you really want to do that
All articles must meet our notability guidelines - in short this means the topic must be covered in depth by multiple sources independent of it.
I am here and willing to help you neutralize the article if you can first narrow it down to a notable topic.
I did a search, and your company meets our notability guidelines. If you'd like to write an article about it, go ahead and do so but I advise you read WP:COI first.
Once you think the article is ready for inclusion, let me know so that I can verify it will meet our guidelines (I'd hate to see it deleted again after yyou put more effort into it.) If you need any help along the way, let me know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria #6
WP:MUSICBIO talks about both musicians and ensembles.
Is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles, or an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians.
It is saying that an article about a musicians who have been in two or more notable ensembles is notable OR an article about an ensemble which contains two or more notable musicians is notable. Therefore, the article still fails criteria 6 of WP:BAND. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me?16:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess the wording is rather ambiguous. I can certainly see it your way. However, if it is talking about two separate ideas, it should be two separate sentences. I think it certainly has been used the way I interpret at times though. For example, people such as Eric Griffiths are considered notable merely for being in a band with two independently notable members. I'll ask for more input at the guideline's talk page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article deserves to make DYK, but you are far too modest. Your contribution to the article was far more significant than my own. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I PRODded and it was contested. I don't believe this is redirect/merge material as this is no different from his visit to another 1000+ towns and villages during his lifetime and therefore not a merge candidate for the main article. I plan on taking this to AfD. What's your take? cheers -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes17:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your assessment. We don't need an article for every visit he ever made, even if they technically all have 2+ sources talking about them. Unless the visit is especially important (no evidence that is the case) then it is non-notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note. Don't worry, I wont be posting any more notes in Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen. I don't expect you to know the history of the article but after years of it, and so many insults from Dr Baileys ( the author ) co-workers ( they revealed it , the info was never requested ) I fell prey to emotion . I can list 30 occasions where they called me things like " low hanging fruit " or other insults to my skills as an editor , but of course I never complained , nor did I call on cohorts who were editors block others . My comments and any talk in discussion are at an end . I will probably continue small edits on the article but trust that any discussion is over. Everything I will do now will be to improve the article and I keep from discussion. Thanks. DarlieB (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ThaddeusB,
If you've got a minute, could you stop by Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen and help DarlieB understand that WP:BURDEN applies to the editor adding questionable material to the article, not to those that challenge it? I don't think that the unanimous opinion of all regular editors is going to be sufficient to convince DarlieB that it's inappropriate to describe a peer-reviewed paper by a professor as an "amateur investigation".
Hi Thaddeus, what this needs is a complete rewrite, with everything properly sourced. As things stand, there are no sources at all for the personal details, and nothing showing notability. If you want to devote the time to it, and you have found sources, I don't want to interfere, but otherwise it should really be deleted. SlimVirgintalk|contribs20:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that thread on ANI you just closed has been reopened by the originator. This is extremely disruptive and completely out of hand , can you address it again?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our little troll friend is back and continue his disruption. He opened a 3rd thread on the issue on ANI and we quickly closed it. I left a definiton of stupid and apparently he thought it was a personal attack [[3]] (Repeating the same action over and expecting a different result is the definition BTW) can we pleaseblock this guy? He doesn't get it, isn't willing to get it and frankly very annoying with his sniveling.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is almost everything I did when I first started but I didn't have a tenth of the people he has on his page trying to help. Then again I was being an idiot too.....Hopefully he can come back like I did but somehow at this point I doubt it. Thanks for the help though.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the side of fairness, maybe a reduction of UK's block would be in order. He's only been here since the end of July I believe and a one or two week block might be enough to jolt his system back to Article writing. Now if he were to start his disruptive behavior again certainly an indefinite would be in order but with the fact that he is still so darn new he may just be too raging mad to accept what we are saying. I had that problem too and it did work out ok when I figured out the greatness of this place. (Incidently I got blocked indefinitely when coming back to apoligize for being a dipshit, but this was later removed because it was clearly in good faith and needed.) I don't know that's just me, you may feel different.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The indef wasn't a punishment for his actions, but rather to prevent further abuse as per his threat to continue disrupting as soon as the block expired. He is welcome to email me anytime he is ready to drop the threat and move on. I will immediately unblock if/when that happens. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno about speedy closing them. I tried to find one of them that was deletion-worthy and have failed so far. Maybe it would be better to let the ones that have lots of commentary and valid keep notvotes be kept, and the few that don't garner enough discussion will be relisted for another week? In the end I'll bet one or two will be deleted/redirected. Abductive (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe most are notable (and all are definitely at least notable within the context of the show) given that Idol is such a big deal. The thing is that I don't want to waste my time searching for sources to prove this for them all, and I doubt anyone else will either. Thus, most people who participate will either vote (not !vote) on a bunch based on their feelings rather than research, or only bother to defend their personal favorites. (There is already one person who voted delete on several with a "rationale" that that essentially said it is about time we start deleting this crap, arguing that previous keep AfDs used "bad" arguments.) I suspect most would be closed as keep after a weelk, but some will be deleted and it won't be based on who is more notable. Instead the results will be based on which voters showed up to that particular AfD. Thus I don't think the current AfDs will be based on discussion and will reach their results "randomly" (more so than a typical AfD). That is why I am saying speedy close. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be upset if they get speedy closed, but I trust the process maybe a bit more than you. So far debate is going as well as might be expected if these were nominated one week apart. Abductive (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, I didn't realize that userfication is just moving the page and deleting the redirect. I'll keep that in mind for the future, it's probably just easier to mark the redirect for deletion. cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes04:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on becoming a administrator. I wish I would have known about you at the time, and the vote would have been 118. I noticed your comments on two of the WP:Article Rescue Squadron flagged articles, and looking at your recent history I was very impressed by several of your redirects...this and your work in AFDs is really commendable, so commendable I think you really deserve this:
The Article Rescue Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to administrator ThaddeusB, for his continued service in making Wikipedia more encyclopedic and working to preserve other editors contributions. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, here is the invitation to join 277 other editors in rescuing articles. Best wishes, and hope to see your name in the AFD trenches soon.
First of all, thank you very much for the barnstar. I do try to PRESERVE whatever content I can, and and am honored that you noticed my work. The reason that I haven't previously joined ARS is that primary focus isn't on AfD, but rather on PROD. I patrol every single expiring prod to look for Notable topics that need dePRODed and not exactly notable topics that should still be preserved through merges. Naturally, sometimes people don't take my word for it and send the page to AfD after I've deproded. Since I have already researched the topic, I am always prepared to make a strong case for it at AfD, usually resulting in a keep.
I improve as many articles as I can, and have indeed have saved some otherwise "hopeless" cases at AfD through editing. Of course, there are only so many hours in a day & I have other obligations (on & off wiki) so I can't edit as many as I'd like.
So basically, I've never felt a need to join ARS since their focus and mine isn't exactly the same, although clearly there is some overlap. However, since you were kind enough to extend me an invitation, I will probably join. :)
In regards to my name sounding familiar, that isn't too surprising. You and I are both "all over Wikipedia" and so I'm sure we have probably contributed to the same discussions on multiple occasions. However, I do not believe we have yet worked together directly. Hopefully that will change now. :)
If there is any type of article in particular you prefer to work on, let me know. Maybe I can throw a few PROD rescues your way for improvement. :) If you ever need any admin help (such as copies of deleted articles), let me know and I will be glad to help. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You deserve the honor. I am incredibly impressed by your statment:
I patrol every single expiring prod to look for Notable topics that need dePRODed and not exactly notable topics that should still be preserved through merges.
Do you do this manually, or do you use some tools? If you use some tools, I am very interested in how. I have been developing some pretty cool gadgets and hope to learn how to use bots soon. Some editors and I at ARS got a auto AFD notifier online.
Who else do you work with regularly on PRODs?
Right now ARS uses a shot gun approach to AfDs, we need to "patrol every single AFD" like you are with PRODs.
Thank you Thaddeus. It is good to see such a thoughful and detailed response. User:Dream Focus at one time expressed a real enjoyment in prod work. I mentioned our converation to Dream. Editors have expressed an interest in somehow making ARS include prod work.
re: Maybe I can throw a few PROD rescues your way for improvement.
Or better yet, post them on WT:ARS, and we can all help. We have 277 members now. If you have the initative, you can incorporate PRODS into ARS. But if you feel more comfortable throwing work my way alone, let me know.
I went ahead and joined. :) I also added some to the PROD discussion.
To answer you questions, my dePRODing is basically manual. I use User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary to go through them in a systematic fashion. I do, at minimum, a Google News search for every article no matter how unlikely it seems. Certain topics aren't likely to appear in the news even if notable, so I often follow it up with a GBooks or GScholar search. When applicable, I do a genre specific search. For example, I put every musical act into allmusic.com to get an idea if they are notable or not. I use AutoHotkey to help do certain repetitive tasks (like type "contest prod"), but all the searching is done manually. I also have a script that organizes my past dePRODs for me. The results are stored at User:ThaddeusB/PROD Log although they are quite out of date at the moment.
The only user I currently work with on a regular basis is MichaelQSchmidt, but I have worked with a number of editors on one or two articles at some point. I generally throw every movie-related article I find MQS's way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please restore Shade 3D. Shade 3D is not an expired product but moved to a new company. It is one of the oldest 3D products available today (first available in 1986, so longer on the market than MAX, Maya and the rest). You probably don't know it because its originally a Japanese product. It also has unique features such as bezier curves, making it relevant to 2D designers. --Chikako (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PROD is short for Proposed deletion, not product. (You could have figured that out by clicking on word PROD which is linked in the deletion summary.) That said, it certainly can be restored upon request so I have done so. That doesn't mean the article can't be deleted again though. If someone so choose, they can send the article to AfD where the community will decide if it is notable or not. The best way to prevent that from happening is to add third party references to the article. In this case, it might include things like newspaper articles, magazines reviews, or major websites that talk about the software. These sources don't have to be available online, but it helps.
I didn't speedy it as an A8; I did so as an A7 (no indication of notability given) and then gave additional reasoning.
I'm willing to restore it if you're willing to add your links to it so that its notability is clearer, but what administrators are actually expected to evaluate when considering whether to delete an article is "does the article as written make a claim of notability?" — which isn't, strictly speaking, the same thing as whether the topic is notable or not. It's quite possible to write a speediable article about a notable topic, and it's also quite possible to write a non-speediable article about a topic that has no chance whatsoever of surviving AFD.
Speedy isn't necessarily just about the notability of the topic — it also has to do with the quality of the article itself. If your research had already been added to the article, it wouldn't have been deletable, but there wasn't any assertion of notability present in the article as written. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Normally, you wouldn't merge histories for a case like this as it can create a very weird history where it looks like people were edit warring between the two version. Fortunately, there were no overlapping GFDL significant edits in the history so I was able to get away with it. :) The only oddity that remains is that it looks like the article was recreated in the middle of it. I is now safe to continue editing, if so desired. The Don't Be Afraid of The Dark page now redirects to the disambiguation page at the proper capitalization. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I knew it would be an odd one the moment I looked at it. Nice that it is already filming. As more is added over the next months, it will only get better. MichaelQSchmidt (talk)`
Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. Your questions were tough, but made the RfA a good learning experience. 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·13:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you take a look? An inordinate number of Astronomy club related articles up there, probably an offshoot of this AfD. Some are obviously bad PRODs like Royal Astronomical Society of Canada which I'll dePROD in a bit - 504 Gnews hits and 1099 Gbooks that are by the society or mention the society. Any reasonable way to address this? -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes17:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As of right now, there appear to be 22 of them. They were nominated in two batches, not lasting more than 5-10 mins in total. The person who proded them almost certainly didn't make any attempt to check for notability.
Now you have two choices basically, you could deprod them all with a statement like "appears to be a disruptive nomination as the proder mass nominated these in a short period." PRODs can be contested for any reason, so it would be well within your right to do so. The upside is it doesn't waste your time. The downside is it is more likely to lead to a group AfD which is almost never a good thing.
The other option is to review them yourself & only deprod the notable ones... or just let them sit & all review any that remain after 6+ days like I do with all other prods. This way is a lot more time consuming but is less likely to cause further problems down the road. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've dePRODded three, some others have been dePRODded too. I'm going to leave it at that, I'm sure there will be others who'd take care of the rest, and I'd love to see Phil Bridger's edit summary when he contests a couple! Then I'll take a stab on deletion day. Different note - just saw the post below, didn't know I'd cause so much trouble! cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes02:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, you didn't actually cause any of the trouble. The guys was just a little upset over me removing a prod combined with the statement I made on your talk page some time ago about him being "snarky." I looked a bit into his history, and he has a habit of sounding bitey - not sure if it is a personality issue or a language issue though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mission Syndicate
I saw that you removed the prod. I really dislike the way that you use your Admin powers. Rather than deleting the page(which no one else contested), you saved it to make your stats look better. Mission Syndicate is now at AFD for people to judge, not just you. As you posted on Spaceman's page earlier about using your admin power because I made a comment, I would assume you would block me from editing for your own personal benefit. I'll just find another I.P and report your dirty tactics anyways.keystoneridin! (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to attack me, please at least make some attempt to get your facts straight. No special authority is required to contest a prod, so I didn't misuse my admin powers to do so. I certainly didn't do so to "make my stats look better" as i don't even know what stat contesting a prod would allegedly make look better. I also didn't use my admin powers when I sent your article to AfD, as any editor can send an article to AfD. So, so far we have me doing two things anyone could have done that you didn't like me doing because my opinion disagreed with your.
Now, you say I will "block you for my own person benefit." Finally you have something that would actually involve admin powers. Thing is, I would never do that despite your assumption of bad faith. I will warn you, however, that these assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks are unacceptable. Your attitude will likely get you into trouble down the road if you don't adjust it. (For clarity I just mean in a general sense, this isn't a threat in any way.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can take that as an attack if you want. I am just stating what I read on here vs. what you actually do. When a prod is supposed to be deleted after seven days, I read that an admin will delete it. In this case, the prod had been expired and therefor ready for deletion for more than six hours (UTC), when you came along and denied it. Had this been any other editor (not an admin), this would have been justified. Furthermore, Administrators on wiki are supposed to be "free from decisions based on other editors". That is to say an admin is supposed to make decisions based on there own findings, not someone else's. Specifically, you seem to be the brainpower for spacemanspiff's eyes. I never made a "snarky" comment. I just do not think it's fair that because you are an admin, everyone else who is not in good with you should have to worship you. I owe you nothing.keystoneridin! (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor can contest any PROD at anytime, including say 3 months after deletion if they wanted. Additionally, by rule administrators are supposed to review prods are make an independent judgment. If you are going to lecture me about policy, please take the time to read the policy first.
Secondly, this is collaborative environment . People are encouraged to ask questions if they don't know an answer. Spacemanspiff regularly asking questions make him a model editor, not a lackey. (He also ask questions of many other people, fyi).
Either way, I do not assume you to be a bad admin/editor. I just think as 1 of roughly 1500 select individuals(admins), editors should be able to question your tactics. Your reasons seem to hold firm, as I apologize if you felt I was assuming you were a bad faith editor.keystoneridin! (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted, but please choose your words more carefully in the future. I have read through a few of your recent comments to people, and a number of them could easily be read as insulting. Please remember that online people can't hear your tone, so if words you choose convey a certain tone people will assume that is how you are talking to them even if that isn't what you intended. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Gypsy Joker Motorcycle Club
On August 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gypsy Joker Motorcycle Club, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I just gave the an editor a second barnstar, and noticed this first barnstar,User_talk:Magioladitis#Barnstar Maybe she/he decided to negotiate and be nice about a redirect with me, because of the positive experience that she had with you before.
Thank you for your kind words. You really know how to make a guy feel good. :) In case you were interested, here is history that led to the barnstar: [6]. Magioladitis took the rare initiative and followed my dePROD advice instead of just AfDing, trying to redirect without merge, or ignoring the situation entirely.
The compromise solution for character articles is simple - merge several articles into one characters list. Yet so many people refuse to accept it, wasting everyone's time. I've even had people argue adamantly against even a redirect at AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PROD
I prodded several songs from Dream Theater's Images and Words album. After seven days without contest, user:Juliancolton deleted them as WP:PROD provides. You have undeleted and redirected them, in some cases with the edit summary "prod contested after deletion." What does "prod contested after deletion" mean?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)By rule, a prod can be contested at any time, including after deletion. If I'd had a chance to review them before deletion I would have redirected them then, but I didn't, so I redirected them after deletion. I restored the history in case someone wanted to work on them later. My summary was simply stating why they were being undeleted.
A redirect is usually the best way to deal with a non-notable songs for a number of reasons: 1) People commonly search for song titles, so redirecting them to related info is helpful. 2) The presence of a redirect discourages inexperienced editors from recreating the article when they find it "missing". 3) It prevents creating new red links as all of these songs had about 5 incoming links. And 4) leaving the history in tact allows an experienced editor to go back in & restore the info if they found evidence that the song is notable at a later date.
All of these songs have potential notability, as it is plausible there are reliable source reviews of the songs "out there" given the extreme notability of the group itself. However, none have proven notability as no one has found these hypothetical reviews and put them into the articles yet.
Sorry to chime in here but I wanted to mention that this article has been created at least 6 times and then deleted over a period of 2 years. Also, condidering that the nominators stated that this article should not be speedy deleted to give the author a few days to determine notibility and get some better refs it was closed in roughly 24 hours. I recommend the article be reopened for at least a couple days to allow the creator a chance to build a decent article. I normally don't inlvolve myself in this area but I have recently found frustration with several articles I created being marked for deletion because the deletion nominator was from England and didn't think that receiving the Medal of Honor was notible enough. In my case google didn't turn up much on a couple of them because the sites were government. Although I am certain the government doesn't maintain info on this individual it did show that google alone isn't the key source to finding quality refs. Whenever the notibility issue comes up I like to point folks to this little article. Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office, which although it isn't a biography certainly pushes the bounderies of notibility.--Kumioko (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article was deleted via AfD, it is no longer within my authority to unilaterally restore it. If the article creator (or anyone else) expresses an interest in improving the article, I could userify it, but to actually restore it would require a community consensus at deletion review. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of agree with the nominators rationale, but on the other hand I don't think it is completely hopeless either. A tried tweaking the inclusion criteria slightly to make it a better defined list, but haven't deproded yet. Let me know if you think that helps.
I've deprodded now, with a plea in the edit summary for a few days to try to save it. I won't be free to do any editing until Monday. Fences&Windows03:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few refs for the Central US stuff. Couldn't help wanting to do something especially since I've busked at the very first entry!There are some good sources about busking in many of the locations, although finding them is very difficult when there are so many about so-and-so busked at this place. cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes04:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ASCAAD
Dear ThaddeusB,
The website of ASCAAD (The Arab Society for Computer Aided Architectural Design) has been deleted. Would you please un-delete it to allow the committee to produce the required changes according to your outlines and comments listed below. Thanks
A Al-Attili
Member of Board of Directors (ASCAAD)
(Expired PROD - page can be restored upon request, but improvement will be needed. PRODer's concern was: A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alattili (talk • contribs) 21:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I have restored the article. However, if the article could still later be deleted via community discussion at articles for deletion. The best way to do that is an third party reliable sources to the article that verify the article's contents. If you need any help with reference formatting or any other kind of help let me know and I will see what I can do. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there Thaddeus. Just wanted to drop a little note that I answered your question at my RfA. Also, Happy Belated Wikiversary! NW(Talk)20:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A warm welcome
I don't think I have ever been more excited to welcome an editor to Article Rescue Squadron. I hope that the Article Rescue Squadron gives you back a fraction as much as your multiple talents are sure to give to the Squadron. Ikip (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found
Hi, ThaddeusB, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!
We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
Some points that may be helpful:
Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification.
Many times we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Many of these editors are also new to Wikipedia so may see deleting "their" article as "bitey". Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages.
The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion.
Our primary work is improving articles tagged for rescue. On this template you can see a drop-down list of current articles tagged. You can install it on your own page by putting {{ARS/Tagged}}. A more dynamic list with article links and description is on our current articles page. It is highly recommended you watchlist it.
If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves.
I did respond on your talk page. It is you who has failed to supply me with the needed information - specifically I do not know what information in John Lakian is supposedly inaccurate. I do understand some of the information is negative, but that doesn't make it inaccurate - and all negative information is attributed to reliable sources. I am sorry Mr. Lakian is embarrassed by his failed political runs, but that doesn't mean they never happened. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Will properly source ASAP"
Lately, I've come across numerous articles de-prodded by you with links to Google search results in the edit summary and the claim that you'll source the article ASAP. This concerns me somewhat because of all these instances, you have yet to do any of the claimed sourcing, and considering your high volume of edits, it does appear you would have the time. Of course you're under no obligation to do any such sourcing, but to say you will without the actual intention of doing so is misleading and easy to construe as a somewhat shady way of deterring the editors doing the prodding from taking further action (i.e., AfDs) in the belief that you're handling the issue. I would like to think this is not the case, so if you could refrain from claiming you'll source the article ASAP when you're instead going to direct your attention elsewhere, it would prevent any confusion. Thanks! Mbinebritalk ←14:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thank you for your concern. I actually have gone back and sourced a number of articles, but I am currently ~2 months behind in doing so. I plan to try and catch up when I take some time off my real world job in the near future. I also plan to enlist the help of other editors to get the job done faster. Perhaps you would like to help me fix some? I can give you a couple in your specific area of interest if you want.
If the issue can be solved, the article shouldn't be going to AfD whether or not I say I will work on it as AfD is not for forcing cleanup. Subjects are judged by their potential, not their current state. I defend every one of my dePRODs that is sent to AfD, almost always successfully. Of course having to defend articles takes my time away from other areas (such as actually improving things), so I prefer articles not go to AfD.
Perhaps my promise to work on the article decreases the number that are sent to AfD, perhaps it doesn't - it is hard to say for sure. However, I do mean what I say. I also dePROD a fair number of articles where I make no such claim since I have no intention of going back to work on those ones. In my experience, those articles really aren't any more likely to go to AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the list of the backlog? I'm happy to help. Mbinebri's query has a hidden and probably unintentional assumption, which is that only the deprodder can source the article - there's nothing stopping someone else who comes across the article from picking up the baton in improving and sourcing them. Fences&Windows22:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Falsehoods and biased comments regarding a living person - John Lakian
Dear Adminstrator,
I work for Mr. John Lakian. The current content on Mr. Lakian contends falsehoods and biased opinions which are slanderous and not in the spirit of Wiki especially when it's regarding a living person. I tried having a friend of mine make the corrections but the corrections got kicked out after one or two days. I then try to update it myself with the same results. Can you contact me directly to resolve this before this gets blown out of proportion. You can call me directly at (personal info removed for user's privacy)
No, what you tried to do was remove all the negative information. Perhaps if you would just specific which information is actually inaccurate I can help you, but simply removing all negative information is not acceptable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I've never tried to edit wiki before and do not know what the protocol is. All I'm trying to do is my job. Please let me know what the protocol is and I'll resubmit. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whyuen10 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, this page, like everything on Wikipedia, is viewable by the general public so you don't want your personal contact info here. Additionally, writing a message here is usually the fastest way to get a hold of me anyway.
OK, I will try to help you as best I can. First, you need to understand that Wikipedia is not censored. The mere fact that Mr. Lakian doesn't like the information in his article is not a good enough reason to remove it. The second thing you need to understand is that Wikipedia generally doesn't decide what is true or false. Instead, we rely on what reliable sources tell us is true.
Now, perhaps some of the information in the article is deceptive or biased. I have no way off knowing the "real truth" as I am not omniscient. However I can tell you that nearly every sentence of the article is attributed to a reliable source. You can't just remove sourced information from the article because your boss says it is untrue. Instead, what you must do is provide some evidence (from reliable sources) that our information is wrong. If there are one or more specific facts that are in question, let me know.
If you can, for example, find something that say Lakian was never involved with First New England Dental we can remove that bit as unverifiable. Besides removing information, you can try to adjust the wording to be more accurate and neutral. If it isn't that facts themselves that are in dispute, but rather only the way they are presented we might be able to come up with a better wording.
Alternatively, if you view the article as too negative you can try adding some sourced positive information about Lakian's life. That would help balance the article without removing sourced information.
I will try to help you if I can, but I need some specifics to work from rather than just a general statement that the article is biased. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proper Sourcing
I authored a page on Frank Camper and had it on my watchlist. An editor named fjcamper came and made some edits "fixing the record" I gae him a conflict of interest warning. I recieved an email explaining all he wanted to do was fix some unaccuracies, I advised him to not edit the article himself. I suggested if he had any reliable sources to send me the list so I could look into and see what could be included. He sent me some pdf documents including a senate transcript that he was an interview subject for. I want to add them as sources as they give a plethora of information of his activities and would help flesh out the article. I want to avoid violating Original research and make sure the sources are considered reliable, Can you help with some guidance?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a government document it should be both reliable and acceptable for sourcing purposes. It is generally acceptable to use primary sources to "flesh out" and article, just not to establish notability. If you want me to take a look at the actual documents you can forward them to gtb38@yahoo.com.
Also, Mr. Camper is welcome to communicate with the community as a whole by using the talk page of the article. In general, that is the recommended course of action for COIs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, I got the email. I haven't had a chance to look over it yet, but I have some free time today ans its near the top of my agenda. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would like this image --> on the star (I'm pressuming the featured article star). Would it look good if it were in a gold circle? Warrior432118:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the article - see Fresh to Order. However, this won't prevent it from being deleted again via the more through articles for deletion process. If someone chooses to nominate it for deletion, it will be put up for community discussion to determine the notability of the subject. If it is then deleted as a result of the discussion I won't be able to restore it again.
To prevent this from happening, you will need to find third party reliable sources that talk about the company in depth. This could be from newspapers, books, or major websites but doesn't include material derived from press releases and routine coverage such as directory listings. These sources don't have to be available online, but it helps. If you need help adding sourcing to the article after you find some, then let me know and I will be glad to help.
When you contest prods of articles that have been deleted, please notify the original prodder. I know we have a bot that trys to do this now, but I don't think the bot does this for recreated articles that have already been deleted. I've also commented on the article's talk page about its notability. ThemFromSpace20:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just ran into this entry, you beat me to adding the rescue tag. I am having a hard time finding references, and will leave it to the rest to the rest of the Squadron to find some. These 973 books may help. [7]
Good luck finding notability on this one. Please pull the tag off when you do. Doesn't matter to me but this seemed like a prime candidate for removal. Cheers! --Stormbay (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for not pressing the issue... Based solely on the article's subject I too would have guessed it to be non-notable, but a GoogleNews search revealed a Chicago Tribune story about the festival among many other usable sources. The Tribune doesn't normally write about non-notable Wisconsin festivals. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you declined the prods for the articles on these two ministers created by their "Web Presence Manager & Graphics Coordinator." In your decline notice, you said you'd get to sourcing and cleaning them up ASAP. I can see you've been active since then, so are you planning on following through or not? AniMatedraw06:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there is no deadline, but I thought we were trying to produce a quality encyclopedia here. This trend of keeping everything and not improving it is disheartening. That is our goal, right? We are here to improve these articles and not just keep them, right? I actually don't think that what Michael Q Schmidt has done is much of an improvement on the first one either. So far it just says he's served on a number of boards that aren't particularly notable, but by all means, let's be sure to keep every article and not improve them. AniMatedraw17:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to violate Wikipedia's core principles by assuming bad faith about me and other editors, please do so somewhere other than my talk page. Give me a break. I am sorry I offended you by disagreeing with your assessment that the articles should be deleted, but that is no excuse for posting this crap here. I do tons of work trying to improve Wikipedia everyday and I will get to the articles when I can. In the mean time, I don't exactly see you trying to improve the article which you claim is an embarrassment to Wikipeidia. All I see is you wasting your time & mine by complaining about them. Do you want a gold star for trying to get an article deleted rather than trying to improve it? Do you really think Wikipedia would be better off if we nuked every imperfect article?
Do you realize that if we deleted every imperfect one we'd loose probably 2/3rd of the encyclopedia overnight? I suppose perfect articles are just supposed to pop into existence on their first draft? Mandating perfect articles would be the perfect way to destroy this site by scaring away 90+% of our contributors who lack either the knowledge or the skill to write these perfect articles you so desire. Tell me, which is easier: improving a existing "crap" article or starting from scratch because the previous efforts of good faith contributors weren't "good enough" and "had to deleted to improve the encyclopedia." --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not looking for perfection, but I see a shockingly high number of contested prods from you, where you cite a google news search but make no effort to incorporate the results of the search into the article. This is an encyclopedia not an indiscriminate collection of information, also one of the five pillars. AniMatedraw19:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I see a shockingly high assumption of bad faith. I have reviewed every expiring PROD for months so of course I have contested a large number of PRODs. It would be unreasonable to expect me to single-handedly fix every article that someone PRODs that I is likely to meet our notability guidelines. I fix as many as I can, and focus primarily on those that need the most work.
I have also allowed ~90% of those I reviewed to be deleted or redirected to an article that covers the same material, so I am hardly being indiscriminate in my dePRODs. Of those that were sent to AfD, the vast majority (80-90%) were kept, so I don't think my judgment is off by much; although obviously it isn't perfect. If you think more of these articles should be deleted, then you should work on changing our notability guidelines not gripping at me for not letting them slip through PROD undetected. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You contested the prod. Fair enough, but can you leave a note of your reasoning? I couldn't verify any of the information from a reliable source. Can you provide a source?--Scott Mac (Doc)22:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Things change in 3+ years time and the subject appears to have gained notability in that time period. You are free to initiate another AfD if you want, but I would advice against it. Instead I would recommend fixing the article to better meet our standards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the acknowledgement, comments and the heads up.
Researching stuff about this place during colonial times is real tough because of the lack of available source materials in English.
Finding stuff at the National Archives of Malaysia isn't all that easy either. Sometimes I spend an entire day, just hunting for the right reference/call numbers so I can "order" the materials I want to study. Have not tried the Singapore Archives (at the Museum or National Library I think) but the best archived I have used is the UK Public Records Office.
Western researchers are familiar with the names of people they view as notable (and expect us to see those people as notable too) but because they cannot find much on Eastern people, events or places, probably because they are unable to find enough sources by Googling, they automatically assume these are not notable.
And that is really sad because it suggests that Wikipedia is NOT global and has a Western bias, with Easterners having to prove extra hard that their posts are of value.
In my earlier days on Wikipedia I've had people challenge my posting of Tan Kim Ching! Imagine that!!
They asked me my interest and when I explained that I was posting info about some of my ancestors who had a place in history they said my posts would be more suited to a Genealogy site than an excyclopedic one. I think they miss the point. I think that their introduction of foreign exchange banking and signing of the Pangkor Chinese engagement/treaty, among other things, earn them their places in history... even if they do happen to be my great grandfathers.
And now that GiantSnowman guy has posted notices that he wants to delete my posts/entries on all those people who may not mean anything to him but who are important parts of our history and whose lives and actions provide valuable lessons for the current and future generations.
Sad, really.
Like I said, it just makes Wikipedia look like a Western-biased place policed by trigger happy vigilantes.
Jeffery Seow
File source problem with File:HouseholdHacker.jpg
File Copyright problem
Thanks for uploading File:HouseholdHacker.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
The template was fine. :) I rarely work with images, so I inadvertently forgot a step there. It has been fixed now. Thanks for the notice. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge problem
Someone copied the content from Malgudi days and pasted on Malgudi Days without attribution. I've now added a R from merge tag and a detailed edit summary to the origin, but nothing on the destination. Is there some way you can fix this? There's been some edits since then, but nothing significant, is it possible to delete and just move the page over? I was looking to edit the page today, but I'm not doing it since I found this rather odd scenario. cheers -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes21:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it was actually a copy and paste move I was able to do a history merge and mesh the two histories up. If it had been an actual merge (i.e. both articles existed and grew simultaneously) you would have needed to add a {{copied}} tag to talk pages of both articles to document the precise edit the merge occurred on, in addition to adding the {{R from merge}}. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, trying to get R. K. Narayan to GA/FA, so I'm looking at all the related articles and creating ones for redlinks, that's how I came across this. Don't know why I have to find all these absurdities though! But for a wikilaugh - yesterday, someone added an Autobiography tag to Muhammad of Ghor! cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes00:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, copy and paste moves are quite common and that doesn't even begin to address the (likely) hundreds of thousands of actual merges done without any credit given. As it happens, history merges are rather time consuming and not much fun so there is indefinitely a massive backlog of pages needing fixes.
Hi there Thaddeus. I guess this is more along the lines of a friendly chat than anything else, but I felt the need to bring something to your attention. Many Wikipedians who work near deletion have long known about your work with patrolling prod-tagged articles. And yeah, there have been past concerns about promises to improve an article, add sources to prove notability and such. You're the kind of person who I respect for their thorough and dedicated work; contesting a PROD with notability proof is something that I fully support. But if you want to contest a PROD that is egregiously POV/unencyclopedic without much retrievable, sourcible content (even if the subject is notable), would you please at least consider a) letting the article be deleted and recreating with a "fresh start", or b) stubbifying/whacking down the page?
I think it becomes a cost/benefit issue. Saving an okay/so-so article about a notable subject vs. a bad, mostly irredeemable article about a notable subject. For example, this. It's more damaging to this encyclopedia to leave that content around without deleting/removing it, than to have a little gap in our scope of broadness. I'm not really a deletionist, but I'd much rather a pretty bad article be rid of (or whacked down) than somebody seeing that and thinking that we, as a supposedly "neutral" info source, accept unreferenced bias. If the encyclopedia is ever going to improve, this is where we start. I know you don't always have the time to improve an article, but that only took me a few minutes. That article, as an example, had much essay-like, POV, "legend has it" unsourced kind of material that we simply should not be tolerating; IMHO it was one of those matters of "overhaul" rather than "solve via editing".
My point is, the fight for "rescuing" and the fight for "quality" can go hand-in-hand. It's rare, but I really believe they can. You're probably more inclusionist than I, and that's cool with me 'cause we're both here with Wikipedia's best interests in mind. But please consider being less contest-happy with low-quality articles if nothing is going to happen with bad content hanging around. Not sure, you might keep a personal list somewhere, but placing a couple of problem tags on the article and leaving it alone isn't going to solve the problem. The top of this userpage has lately been a humorous but truthful reminder for myself to be more bold when something's the right thing to do. Hopefully everything makes sense, I'm not a particularly eloquent person. Reply here if you wish, I've got it watchlisted. JamieS9318:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, as far as I'm concerned this is on the back burner—if you've got more important things to do, don't feel pressed to reply. ;) Best, JamieS9301:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(after a funny edit conflict...)
Thank you for the comment. You are completely correct - I shouldn't have just let Yibir stand. Thank you for stubifing it. I was in a hurry when I removed that particular prod, but that is a poor excuse. I should have probably at least reverted to an earlier version of the article (which has existed since 2006 BTW). I will also add that if the article had been only marginally notable, I would have just deleted it. However, this is an entire tribe of people and I didn't want to just erase them off Wikipedia.
It is not my habit to leave negative material sitting around and I do at least try to fix negative BLPs. However, negative material is rarely a problem - the far more often is overly positive material. I do my best to take a quick wack and remove crapola of both kinds whenever possible.
I do understand completely what you are saying and I agree quality is better than quantity. On the other hand, I feel internal pressure to check every PROD every day since I know for a fact notable topics will be deleted if I don't act. On days when I have only a few hours to commit to Wikipedia that can make life hard as I have to make some sort of unfortunate sacrifice.
Hrafn has his own personal style. He can be perceived as abrasive, but multiple administrators have already tried to counsel him on civility. He has his own agenda, but interacting with him made me a better editor, even though it was incredibly frustrating at first. I wouldn't get my hopes up that you'll change him, but I would absolutely encourage you to not let him "get" to you. Even though I didn't believe it at first, he really is here to build a better encyclopedia. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. I have no reason to doubt his intentions, but the edit in question was clearly inappropriate and that needed to be pointed out.
"Build a better encyclopedia" can be a rather subjective view. From what I have seen Hrafn's "abrasiveness" has been involved in multiple cases where other editors have left, editors I believe were also here to build a better encyclopedia. For some reason the articles where these users left is still biased and non-neutral after he has shut down discussions claiming them as off-topic. He has given me plenty of reason to doubt his intentions and I think more admins need to point his behaviour out. Biofaseflame| stalk 20:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the gist of this statement. If someone is scaring away contributors then they are not a net positive to the project, even if their content contributions are quite valuable by themselves. Incivility isn't accepted when it comes from new users, and it shouldn't be considered acceptable when it comes from an established editor either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When is it appropriate....
To refactor another editors talk page? [[9]] I have left a lvl 1 warning on this page for refactoring another users talk page that was clarly not vandalism. I have since been told that because I have a colorful history it is an invalid warning. I would like to have a few admin go and comment one way or another to this as I believe my actions were not only appropriate but very moderated. Thank You.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You also deleted Fazal Mohammad (disambiguation), as an expired {{prod}}.
Whoever nominated it did not honor the recommendation of the deletion policies, and did not leave a courtesy heads-up on the talk page of the contributor who created the article.
I would have contested this {{prod}}, if I had been aware of it.
I think you wouldn't have completed the {{prod}}, if you hadn't agreed with the nomination.
For the record numerous former Taliban commanders were given explicit and tacit amnesties, and subsequently held senior positions in Afghanistan's post-Taliban administration. So I continue to think disambiguation is essential. Geo Swan (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I will restore the page if you want, but it is completely unnecessary at this point. There might be numerous notable people with the name Fazal Mohammad, but only two have pages currently, making a disambiguation page unnecessary. The primary entry at Fazal Mohammad points to the only other entry at Fazal Mohammad (Kandahar Provincial Council 2005). When a third Wikipedia page is created for an individual by the same name, then we will need a disambiguation page, but right now it would serve no purpose.
There is no need to have any sort of disambiguation on Fazal Mohammad (Kandahar Provincial Council 2005) as it is already disambiguated via the parenthetical phrase. That is to say, no one would land on that page but really be looking for another individual known by the same name. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the undeletion thing, how is this notable (or at the very least, independently notable from Amy Winfrey, who is only borderline notable herself)?. Like most of the walled garden of articles about her, no sources (and yes, I did look before I PRODded it - practically everything I could find was about Winfrey and mentioned this as part of her work). If it needs to exist at all, surely it should be in Winfrey's article. Black Kite15:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well first please note that articles deleted via PROD get be restored without question at any time.
As to the actual article, there are about 15 news stories which at least mention it. Notability is fairly marginal, but, as I noted in my deprod, that is a reason to merge the material into Amy's article, not a reason to delete it. I have no objections to such a merge as long as the instructions at Help:merge are followed to insure proper attribution. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the films are already mentioned in her article, surely it only needs a redirect then? The rest is merely a list of the films, which is clearly too much detail. Black Kite15:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the episode info is excessive. Also, there are three paragraphs of background info on the cartoon. However, I will just go ahead and merge itself here shortly - that way you don't have to worry about it. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thank you for pointing out that my signature was incorrectly directed. :) I appreciate your help.
You recently deProded Borri with the explanation "appears to have coverage in multiple sources". I believe you'll find that none of those sources add up to "significant coverage" as required by WP:CORP. They all amount to business listings, press releases, etc. But happy hunting. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!18:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have de-proded it if I idn't think it was salvagable. There are over 600 books listed on Google Books that cover the subject, many of them in great detail. Although I am not an expert, it appears to be a notable concept both to dentistry and anthropology. The best way to get an good article would be to find an expert to write one, but failing that you or I could throw together a decent stub using material we gleaned off the internet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your Opinion
ThaddeusB,
I have been reflecting on the deletion of the page Carmelo Rafala by Nuclearwarfare. While I believe that I supplied enough detail to establish notability, NW and discussion persons disagreed. However, considering techniques used in print encyclopedias and in other publishing outlets, I followed professional protocol. Words and comments used to describe the author's work does, indeed, reflect back upon his talent and him as a writer. This is current thinking and application in the fields. Moreover, the review outlets are established professional outlets for the genre and are recognized as such.
I was hoping you might take a look at the page (now deleted) and let me know your thoughts.
To be honest, I was asked to provide the information and I did. If the page requires deletion, then wiki needs to, firstly, recognize professional review markets when they are presented, and secondly, update its policies on how to use comments to reflect current practice in the field.
Thank you kindly for your time. (Woomfy (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
A couple of comments. First, Nuclearwarfare acted appropriately. If I was dictator of Wikipedia, I might have been inclined to keep the article, but if I had been closing the AfD I would have closed it the same way. I reviewed the sources in the article, and I don't think any of them intrinsically meets our definition of a reliable source. It is possible, the sources meet WP:RS, but you have provided no evidence they actually are reliable - you merely stated that they are. You are welcome to seek community input as to the sources notability at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you can convince people there that the websites from which the reviews come are in general reliable, then you would have a good case for restoring the article. Failing that, you will have to wait for a mainstream source to review the book (such a newspaper or widely known magazine/journal), rather than just genre specific websites.
I can userify the article for you if you want, but honestly their is little hope of it surviving in mainspace unless you can prove those reviews are reliable or new sources can be found. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thaddeus, I saw this edit fly by on Recent Changes and took your suggestion to heart. Guess what, it's a FASCINATING topic and I managed to pull something out of it--look at Yibir now (and I put it up at DYK). Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you for doing so much work to improve the article. I took a bit of flack for dePRODing this article (see above), but I am certainly glad I did now. Thanks again for making a decent article out of this stub/perpetual POV target. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the article per your request. However, it is still subject to deletion via the "articles for deletion" process. If someone chooses to nominate it for deletion via that process, the community will decide if it should stay or go. AfD deletions can't be easily undone, so it is best you improve the article to limit the chance it will be sent to AfD to begin with. The article needs to be expanded, and most importantly it needs third party references in reliable sources. This could include newspapers, magazines, books, or major websites, but can't include press releases or material derived from press releases. These references don't have to be found online, but it is helpful if they are.
You have been claiming that you will add content to European Super League for nearly two months, but barely anything has been added in that time. Maybe you should start writing before I decide to take the article to AfD. – PeeJay09:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you have recently deleted the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Moody. Apparently due to not being notable. Not sure if it reaches your shores but Pete Moody is a Voice Coach on UK tv inc. TRISHA GODARD SHOW and SHOWCASE TV - He also works for the X-factor team. As a member of his fan club I was a little upset to see him removed and would really like to know how to get the article back - does it need adding to? Can I Do something? I notice one of the comments on the deletion page said you are not notible unless you are in congress? Guess that counts out all people from the UK? - Bit confused by this? thank you for your time - Steph V —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.80.209 (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are in luck. The article was deleted via our proposal deletion process. In short, this process allows an article to be deleted if no one objects within 7 days time, but also allows the article to be undeleted upon request at any time. (I didn't actually request it be deleted , I just push the button after the 7 days had passed.) I will restore the article immediately.
Now, the bad news. Once it has been undeleted, anyone can nominate the article for more permanent deletion via our articles for deletion process. If that happens, the community will decide whether it should stay or go based upon our notability guidelines. The best way to prevent this from happening is to add references to third party reliable sources. This may include newspapers, magazines, books, or major websites among other things. These sources should talk about Mr. Moody, not just mention him in passing and can not be press releases or material derived from press releases. The coverage doesn't have to be available online, but it helps if it is.
I don't have time to help you find sources, but if you need help properly adding them to the article after you find them, let me know. I will be glad to help with that part of the process, if needed. Feel free to ask me for help, or use the help desk if you need further assistance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let the facts speak for themselves
I was linking to this today when I realized to my horror that this simple, eloquent recommendation was removed....By consensus! Now, I know that only jaded, old WP editors hang out in the WP:discussion pages, but I always loved this simple "You don't need to say Hitler is bad" guideline. It tended to focus the mission of WP and always seemed very... Jimbo. Do you think there is a way we can reintroduce it? --Knulclunk (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't part of the discussion and have no opinion on it, but from what I saw there was pretty much unanimous agreement to delete then current wording. Opinion was split on what (if anything) to replace it with. Your best bet to get it back it some form is to make a strong case on the policy's talk page and hope others "see the light." --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clayton Counts / The Beachles
Hi Thaddeus - I notice that you removed Clayton Counts' article. The article had been nominated for deletion, and the decision was 'keep.' Mr. Counts is currently in a drone band called Bull of Heaven, who have pieces of music that last for days. They have one piece that is an entire week long. In addition, there were other links in Mr. Counts' article that were independent of the Beachles controversy, including a Chicago Reader article describing an altercation with a bouncer prior to the Beachles' release. I'm not criticizing your decision to delete the article, but I am curious if this was your decision ultimately, and if so what prompted it. I would think that the AfD decision would count for something, and that his accomplishments merit his inclusion here, most especially because his page had been ranked as Start Class for Contemporary Composers. If Clayton Counts' article is non-notable, I would think that several other mash-up creators should have their articles reviewed for independent notability as well. TrevorPearce (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't delete the page - I merely redirected it. An AfD closing as keep doesn't prevent the later editorial move of redirecting, nor does it even prevent later deletion.
You are free to undo the redirect if you really want, but it was about 90% duplicate info with no claim of notability independent of the event. If the page were to have another AfD today, I imagine the result would be different as I think the first one was rather too close to the event for people to objectively evaluate Mr. Counts' notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. The main reason I thought it should be kept is that he is responsible for making the remix, and is mentioned by name in all the references. Now that he's creating pieces of music that go on for weeks, I'm sure he'll end up needing a proper bio one day, unless no one aside from me sees that as a notable achievement. As of right now, there's probably not anything to add to the existing article. TrevorPearce (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Superstar (Toy-Box Song)
My page "Superstar (Toy-Box Song)" was deleted and I don't understand why, I know that it did not meet some standards but there was not much info that I could dig up! So I am here to inform you that the page will be recreated in the exact same way it was (unless I get more info on it), and if it is deleted again I will be notified and the page will again be recreated. Multimusiclover1 (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are in luck, as the page was deleted via the proposed deletion process. Another editor nominated it for deletion and no one objected for 7 days time, which meant it could be deleted. I merely pushed the button to delete it after the requite 7 days. This process allows the article to restored at any time no questions asked, so I have restored in to Superstar (Toy-Box song). However, this doesn't mean it can't be deleted again. Any editor can send it to article for deletion (AfD) at anytime. If that happens, it will be up to the community to decide if it stays or goes and deletion via that process can't be easily undone. The best way to avoid that happening is to add third party references to reliable sources that talk abut the song in depth or show that it charted on a notable chart. Keep in mind that most songs aren't notable - see WP:NSONGS. If improvements aren't forthcoming within a couple, I will send it to AfD myself.
You should know, however, that the tone of your message here is completely inappropriate. First of all, you don't own the article. Second, what you have threatened to do (restore deleted material over & over again) is disruptive editing and is grounds for a block. Please take a minute to read over some of the links on your talk page to get a better understanding of what is and what is not acceptable around here.
Hi, I found your page off of user:Duffbeerforme he had prod tagged one of your articles a while ago. He's put one of the first articles I've poured any work in to up for afd discussion and I'd love your interjection/opinion on the matter, I feel it's an article worth keeping or expanding and would love an administrator's view point, especially as you seem interested in giving smaller bands and labels a chance for articles, I spent more than an hour digging up sources for the page and really found some well verified third parties but they seem to be being ignored in the discussion. I'm quite new to Wikipedia so I could use your opinion, even if that's to delete, I feel like there's an imagined animosity between myself and him because I edited some articles he'd apparently contributed to (we're in a small genre) and he felt I was targeting him (which I promise you I was not)
Fair enough :) I guess I am in the wrong, still quite new to the whole thing, I'll take it back to the drawing board, I appreciate your time Stevezimmy (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all thanks for taking on this closing. This is probably not necessary but I just wanted to make sure you were also taking the collapsed discussions and perhaps the talk page into consideration... as if the RFC section isn't big enough. That's all. Thanks again. Equazcion (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from here, too! I really hope this satisfies everyone. And for once, I entirely support the usage of WP:IAR. :) One minor thing, tho: You write "The reviewing admin is instructed to ignore all !votes that don't directly argue about how it is more or less useful/important than average" about the individual TfDs (emphasis mine). Considering that you only mention "more useful/important" in the previous sentence, was that intentional? Your closing comments indicate that there have to be especially strong arguments to keep an individual template, but that one sentence implies that there have to be especially strong arguments to delete it, too (which would make "This template isn't more useful than others" an invalid !vote). I'd rather have this clarified before any large discussion about this starts on a TfD. :) Thanks again for taking the time and effort to close this large discussion. --Conti|✉11:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A well done closure, I must say. At the time I closed the first discussion, it seemed quite obvious what the consensus was so I didn't elaborate it to much detail (and you got my point correctly, yes ;-) ). When the debate got renewed, I didn't want to get involved much because of obvious reasons but I followed the development. And I believe that the IAR is well invoked here since it is the most reasonable guideline to proceed with those possibly useful templates. So, good job! --Tone19:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ThaddeusB. I was wondering I could get the process of delivering Wikipedia Signpost articles automated. You see, there are bots that do it, but there is a considerable backlog and those bots can't always get it done. I inquired here and it was suggested that more bots be recruited. I was wondering if you knew how to make that bot? I or somebody else could operate it, and once a week, it would become active and deliver Signpost articles. Thanks, Airplanemantalk23:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Advice on bot request
Hello, I noticed your name while looking for direction on the WP:BTR page and wondered if you could give me some advice. A user, Lando09 (talk·contribs), is currently editing rugby league pages, replacing the existing {{infobox rugby league biography}} with his own, newly-created, {{infobox rugby league super league biography}}. He has altered several hundred articles (probably more) in the space of a day or so and while a few of the members of WP:RL have attempted to revert the edits it looks as though it could be a time-consuming job. Is this sort of thing too small for a bot request? Any advice would be appreciated. (The new template has been listed for deletion Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 20.) florrie 04:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, make sure he has stopped doing this so he doesn't create anymore work to be undone.
Second, it is probably easier to undo all the changes using AWB that write a bot for such a specialized task. If you need help undoing them after the TfD closes, let me know, and I'll lend a hand. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - just curious on the reasoning for not speedy deleting this one. The only refs that are marginally evidence showing notability are the two "Weekly volcano" articles - which is a local interest arts paper. I don't see anything outside of that local interest demonstrating notability. Also, note that it was created by Ty88 (talk·contribs), who was blocked as a sock of Team unicorn (talk·contribs), who was blocked for disruption of re-re-creating promotional articles - neither user engaged in any discussion about their edits. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In short "marginally evidence of notability" is sufficient to decline speedy deletion. That doesn't mean the subject is notable enough for inclusion, just that it is ineligible for speedy deletion. The next step would be to PROD it or send to AfD if you think the band is non-notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You did pretty well; not perfect, but if you were already perfect you wouldn't need by help. :) I commented more thoroughly on the actual page. If anything is unclear, or you have questions you can reply to my comments on that page. I'll get back to you with your next assignment shortly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually went there before coming here to check my grade. Was it an A- or only a B+ ? I'll be heading out soon to do some posing at CSULB for the next few hours... I'll check in when I get back home. PS: I almost simply passed on that twisty Georgian one, as Google translate wouldm't touch it... but when I tried just one twisty word, GT said "we don't tramslate Georgian"... so I knew the language was at least real. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this asking User:Hesperian to get involved about the BAG drive-by approval process that may see your poorly thought-out bot, with unmonitored data, without community consensus, be approved for a trial run. --69.225.3.119 (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, what EXACTLY is "poorly thought-out"? Once again, how is RS data that many eyes have checked "unmonitored data"? Once again, you stating your opinion doesn't make it a fact that there is "no consensus" for this task.
Everything that I already mentioned. That you chose to ignore and say was invalid rather than addressing. Where's the consensus? You were asked to post it already.
If I hadn't alerted interested parties, instead of accusing me of canvasing, would you be accusing me of stealth? Yes, "hissy fit," "passive aggressive," all my issues are non-issues because you say so. Canvasing now. How many insults and personal attacks do you get? Any limit? My issues are on the bot RFBA. You opted to say my issues are invalid. They're not. Others agree they're not invalid issues. --69.225.3.119 (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Wikipedia has articles on some of the most menial, insignificant topics and people out there but because there does not exist other articles about the band you deemed it not "worthy" enough to be on a FREE website that has the fact checking skills of Fox News and Glen Beck. This was supposed to be a stupid present for friends of mine from college after we just graduated together and you had to delete it for incidental reasons. I hope you had fun swinging your powerful Wikipedia editing stick around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uchuty11 (talk • contribs)
Sorry your "friend's band" doesn't meet our standards, but the fact that we have standards is a good thing, not a bad thing. If we allowed anyone to write whatever they wanted about anything then we'd be a lot closer to resembling your comment than if we didn't. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I did read what you wrote, but the problem is it wasn't a valid argument. The fact that some other engineering society has a page says nothing about the notability of BEAMES. Your argument is the equivalent of saying McDonald's is notable therefore every hamburger joint is notable. See the fallacy here?
Hi Thaddeus. You removed a prod from Iboga Records as "the label has released some notable albums". That does not satisfy wp:corp. Whenever you remove my prods I leave a lot of time before returning to those articles but after further investigation I still can't see this article satisfying wp:corp. A few "notable" releases does not seem enough. I am thinking AFD is the go. Please feel fre to comment. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for coming here. I won't object if you send it to AfD as I mainly deprodded because I felt it should be discussed before being deleted. However, I have an alternative suggestion - how about I send to to WP:INCUBATE and see if anyone can come up with some more solid sourcing. It seems reasonably plausible to me that there is more out there than what GNews knows about. Incubation moves it from mainspace to a noindexed page so that will at least remove it from search engines. What do you say? --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the discussion at the page you mentioned and according to that if a person thinks that one of templates should be kept they should send them to WP:TFD. I also noticed that one of the templates seems to have been kept per discussion. FeinohaTalk, My master22:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first part of your statement is correct - any "future" template not sent to TfD within the next 10 days or so will be deleted. As to Template:Future product, I do not believe that template has actually been through such a TfD. The removal of the notice seems to have been a single editor acting on his own accord & has since been reverted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right; I have been very busy and not done much of anything in depth on Wikipedia recently. As to notability, this search should yield plenty of viable sources. Remember, only 2 sources that talk about the subject in depth are required to establish notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It must have closed as I was typing my support, as it hadn't closed yet when I hit edit. (It also closed 9 hours early, so I couldn't have anticipated that.) In any case, not a big deal, as the vote was irrelevant to the outcome. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the requests are done on GMT, in which case the closing was only 10 minutes late. But thanks for your support, anyway-- and yes, it does make a difference...it means I know you are backing me! :) Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 22:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oldprodfull
Hi. You previously viewed my talk page and advised that I should add 'oldprodfull' to talk pages. You can see I have recently been de-prodding a small number of the mass of football articles being prod'ed. The majority of these are going straight to AfD. Is it still worth adding oldprodfull. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say no. An AfD is going to override a prod - that is, an article that survives AfD can't be legitimately proded. As such there is no point in having both an oldafd and an oldprod tag on the same talk page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please check my reasoning at Talk:Rat-Trap. The original title has the greater searchable notability. After doing my homework, I attempted a move, but it seems that since the original name is now a redirect, this will take an admin. I believe a move back is the correct decision. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, many of the things on this page as sandboxes are actually because they were moved from sandbox to mainspace. Sure looks worse than it is. Any way to remove the un-needed redirects? Might make the page look less cluttered. Second, this: User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox Reed Cowan is ready for your incubator. A few more tweaks and it should be fine back in mainspace, Thanks, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't hyperlink "this page", but based on your post on DGG's page/the AfD linked to there, I am assuming you mean the redirect found here. I'll be happy to delete them once you confirm that is what you mean. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup complete. :) Only two redirect remain & they point to other places in your userspace. Ikip is correct that you could have tagged them for speedy, but it wouldn't have actually saved any admin work & would have cost you some time, so this request was perfectly fine.
I think Ikip may have misunderstood my request. I understand how to tag for G7 to request deletion of a page I may have created... or blanking it to signify I wish its deletion. This was a different problem. After develop new articles in a sandbox, I moved them to mainspace, rather than do a cut and paste. This has left numerous redirects from the sandboxes that were seen here. Since the redirects from my sandbox to mainspace were not neccessary, it was those that I wished removed. ThaddeusB done real good. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incubation process
G'day, thanks for the message. On the "eval=status" thing, personally I'm not yet convinced that it's necessary. I mean, I can make articles in namespace normally without getting approval, just as I can split and merge articles etc. I guess it would make sense for someone from the incubation team to check *after* I've moved it back into mainspace, but it feels to me to be an unnecessary bureaucratic step to require that *before*.
Regarding copy-pasting rather than moving the article, thanks for the tip. For some reason I didn't think I'd be able to move the page over an existing deleted page. I guess I was wrong. And you're right about keeping the attribution being important. Thanks for fixing up the history - I'm not an admin so couldn't do it. Stevage12:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This task is now approved, and the bot has been flagged, so feel free to start when ever you want. Also, I must say, I'm most impressed by the bot, so:
Thanks a lot for the recognition - it is very much appreciated. I didn't previously know this award existed, but I must say it is pretty sweet.
To me, programming a bot to do something that requires making an intelligent decision (i.e. adding a specific state category) is far more interesting that just having it blindly do the same thing to every page (i.e. add the national catgeory). Of course the later can be useful at times, but I like to do the former and fight the perception that bots are incapable of making decisions.
I see that you have closed this as requiring no administrator action. I disagree. This bot is still running despite no consensus having been reached as to whether its edits are appropriate, and despite this assurance by the operator, so administrator action, i.e. blocking until consensus is reached, is very much needed. Allowing the bot to carry on goes against the principle of WP:BRD, i.e. that it should be possible for an edit to be reverted until discussion leads to a consensus. There's no way that I can keep up with all the bot's bold edits to revert them, which it very difficult to have a calm discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More congrats
Congrats on adminship. Right then. What we can do once the project is rolling is to contact all the people who have listed themsevles as speaking a certain language and them notification of the project. It could be bot generated although it would need BAG approval I believe.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat09:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. There are several message bot already approved, so it is simply a matter of asking one of those to send out a message for us. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a start on Wikipedia:WikiProject TRANSWIKI, I'll have some assistance with page design and layout shortly I rather like the logo. You'll see there is a language pages red linked. The idea is that each language functions as some sort of taskforce and editors are recruited for each who speak the language or are interested in articles from that particular wikipedia. It will take time to build followers but the first step is to draw up missing article directories for each wikipedia. The list pages will be listed under each language wikipedia neatly in topics/sub topics and sub pages. There will be a massive amount of missing articles to list and organise up but this is the idea.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat17:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern about this project as with many projects is that one moment there will be tens of people posting in rapid succession and seem interested and suddenly it just seems deserted!!! It seems everybody is away at once!! I honestly hope there will be enough people interested in this project to maintain it and not make it die out like several other projects on here. Do you disagree with the idea of the way in which missing lists could be drawn up? Dr. BlofeldWhite cat21:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the way it is structured. Everything looks good. Recruiting and maintaining active members will be a challenge, but that is nothing unique as all WikiProjects have that problem. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All that you have written above sounds good to me. I took a look at the example pages and everything seems fine. I'll start work on the bot as soon as I can - in the mean time I suggest you listen to the advice that someone else wrote on the talk page: "We need to walk before we run." I know you want this project to happen instantly, but that isn't realistic. I only have limited time, and have other obligations on and off wiki. Other members are the same. We don't need all this content "imported today", we need it "imported right", which will take time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder; you may not have forgotten, but I nearly had. And no complaint about a delay — congratulations on the successful RFA :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with articles such as your example is that they really shouldn't be linked there. Please go simply by the infobox; we can figure out what to do with articles like this at some other time. Thanks for the attention! Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no good reason that an infobox should show a state other than where it's located, so going by locmapin is a great idea. Some infoboxes have a nationwide map, not a state map, but adding the nationwide category would work fine there. I expect that "nrhp_type2" etc. would be a good idea, since if it's an HD as well as something else, it's still an HD. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you run into some sort of problem with this bot, or are you simply working on other matters at the moment? Not trying to bug you; just curious. Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its the later. I could just have the bot zip through the rest, but I wanted to do a couple more semi-automated ones before unleasing it full scale, just to be sure.
Most of my time currently is going towards making user WebCiteBOT archives all GeoCities links (including on foreign wikis) before GoeCities shuts down on the 26th. Thus, you can expect to see NRHP edits no later than the 27th.
Wow, you need to calm down a bit. I am busy and can't instantly reply to everything that comes up. I have a real job that I am trying to get done and can only spend a few minutes on Wikipedia at a time.
In regards to Babel Fish, Wikipedia shouldn't be saying "we prefer this one and only this one service." If there are alternative available, we should list them all. Also it would be rather pointless to have a translation tools section with only 1 tool. We need to find more tools and add them to the list, not just rely on Google translate for everything. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Babel fish is good but not as good as google translate but if you feel it should be linked I have no problems. I would just have really appreciated it if you had quickly said you were busy and said you'll discuss it when you have time. When there is no response in 6 hours and I can see you are on here then I begin to have doubts. I understand now.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat19:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to appear so anxious, its just I've had failures with bot projects in the past when I put a lot of time into trying to create a project so I don't want to do so again! As Blofeld once said "This organization does not tolerate failure". As long as we gradually make process in our own time allowing for RL and other committments I'm happy with that, when you are ready we should discuss how a the bot would go about copying from categories and auto geenrating them into lists on the project talk page. That's the next step but whenever you are not tied down!! Perhaps we can discuss it next week some time.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat19:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine. I have another bot project I need to finish up, but I should be able to start on this one early next week and the first step should only take two-three days to program (and then a few more days to await approval). --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already was making a bot called ContentCreationBOT for another project, so I figured I'd reuse the name rather than create another. The reason being that it will be actually creating content in step 2. (Step 1 being just creating the lists.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start working on the bot coding for this today or tomorrow. I'll make a post at the Wikipedia when I'm ready for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I did start adding to a few like Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Slovenian/Sports but that was because I moved them from the previous project space. I'd imagine what we'll need is a bot which by passes all articles which have en: links in them and lists all articles without en: links in the workspace. I'd imagien it would be able to read off main categories and core categories so we at least know what main topic the articles fall into. What we will need though is a way to be able to organize it and know exactly what each category refers too. That may require manual work later...Dr. BlofeldWhite cat14:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thaddeus, I recently came across your WebCiteBOT project which I think is pretty exciting and a good solution to the long-term link rot problem. I'm working on something related on Commons, which is using ImageStamper to keep a permanent record of the license of images (particularly Flickr images) at the time they were uploaded. I just wanted to inquire about the status of the WebCiteBOT project and if there's anything I can do to help. Dcoetzee22:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That ImageStamper site is pretty neat, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
WebCiteBOT is pretty thoroughly tested now, so mostly it is just a question of ramping up the volume it does per day. Webcitation.org is a fairly small operation and is not accustomed to the volume of links I've been sending them (which isn't even enough to cover the new links being generated yet) so I am trying to take it easy on them. I've already caused them to have to upgrade their server once. Eventually, I want to port the bot to other Wikipedias, but given the current situation that isn't likely to happen soon. If/when I expand the project and need help, I'll drop you a line. Thanks for the offer, ThaddeusB (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will take a look at the merge instructions and write something similar to what I said at [[[User talk:I dream of horses]]. I have barely been online the past few days, but I will try to get to it today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The message was just to make sure you were aware of my request, so please don't feel a need to prioritize this task. I can work from the full existing directions. Whoever gets there first can take the first crack. Flatscan (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where ever you want is fine - a page in your user space, one in mine, or even one in the ARS project space. I must caution you however, that it will likely be a couple weeks before I can act on the proposal, as I have several other BOT obligations to address first. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I use the online Sepkoski database. The only useful information it offers is the order, the generic name, and the time range of the subject. See here for an example that won't take all day to load. Abyssal (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thing with the Paleodb is that it doesn't, in my experience, tend to have any more info than the Sepkoski database on the species included in the latter. I don't know of any other, unless this one counts. Thanks for taking an interest in this project. Abyssal (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great template! For the see also section, are you sure you can't use the bot for some of that? The paleo db lists sister genera, they would be useful there. The morphology tab has diagnosis and measurement data that may be useful for the article. Also, you might want to rephrase "(Genus) were first identified by (scientist name) in (year)" to "(Genus) was first described by (scientist name) in (year)." IT would also be cool if the year linked to the corresponding article in this series. Maybe the collections tab would have something useful. Other than that, I'm really pleased. Thanks for your hard work! Abyssal (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just checking in and see how things are coming. Also, I was curious if a bot could, say, scan and extract information from a PDF the same way it would an online database. Later. Abyssal (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I uh, had no clue what was going on. Here are the Sepkoski abbreviations. Most of the start and end times are in the respective articles on the time periods. The Paleodb has info on the start and stop times of subepochs. I can't generate the higher order text until we pick out a taxon to use the bot on. There's no real way for me to anticipate any scientist whose name may be encountered by the bot. There are just too many of them, and I'm not an invertebrate specialist to know any of the big names, who probably only named a small minority anyway. For the see also list, all we need to list is the sister genera listed in the pbdb and the List of taxon article, which can be done as soon as we pick a taxon to work with. If I can assist in anyway please keep me posted. :D
By the way, maybe you should clarify exactly how this bot is going to work, just so I'm up to speed and not making moronic suggestions. Abyssal (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a PDF that is a list of every Trilobite genus named before 2003, plus their family, time period, authors, years, and a bibliography. I thought it would be useful when we work on the Trilobites. Abyssal (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noticed the number of articles on the front page? Considering that our bot could end up creating more than 20,000 articles (~5,000 trilobites + ~5,000 brachiopods + ~10,000 molluscs not to mention echinoderms, bryozoans and cnidarians), we have a very serious opportunity to be the Wikipedians that create article number three million, if we time this right. I estimate that the day that number of articles would be reached without our intervention to be at the very beginning of august. I think we should go for this. Maybe the second we see the article counter get within twenty thousand or so of the goal we let the bot do its thing and mass generate those articles. What an opportunity! Abyssal (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to be that obnoxious guy that constantly harasses you, but, uh, how are things going? Anything I can do to help? Abyssal (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to know I've not been a bother, and glad to hear about your progress. What did you think of my proposal for us to shoot for being the guys who make article 3 million? I think we have a shot, and it would certainly give us bragging rights. :P Abyssal (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said before that you could use the prod, so here I am prodding. I'm curious about how you're progressing, you said before that you were on the verge of collecting the data. I've started working on the stub templates we're going to need to create. Do you still want me to collect the start and end dates of the time periods? Anything else I can help with? Abyssal (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you avoiding me? I've left several messages on your talk page but have yet to hear from you in over a week even though you've been very active. Abyssal (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see that you weren't just ignoring me. :D I know it's going to be a difficult fight, but I think we can win them over if we start small. Maybe they would allow us a trial-run to demo it? Say, create articles for Ciliophora, which would create about 30 articles. If something goes horribly horribly wrong, then we could catch the problem early, and correct the bot accordingly with little in the way of clean up.
Now two questions,
Do you want that PDF?
What do you need me to do to prepare us for the actual article creation?
Hey, Thad, just some random thoughts on our project:
I think we should start trying to distance ourselves from the anybot fiasco in advance of our request for bot approval to make things easier for us. What advantages does PACbot have over the anybot thing? I think we'd have more human involvement in the articles, since there are aspects we have to pick and choose by hand, like in the see also links, and we'd have to pick a stub category for the major groups by hand, and that sort of thing. Also, our bot won't have problems with security the way Anybot did with that webpage it was publicly accessible from. Maybe we could compile a list of the specific issues that happened with Anybot and write a corresponding list of corrections and precautions that will be present in PACbot? I believe that would go a long way in alleviating concerns from the BAG.
Also, could our bot be used to fill in data in a table with data gathered from our sources? Like say, go through the List of placoderms and automatically add in the authority, year, age and such? If you could get it to do that and it works, it may dispel any doubts the BAG might have about your ability to program a successful content generating robot before they're even brought up.
PS: Sorry for moving this, but you said you missed previous messages because the topic wasn't near the bottom of your page. Abyssal (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent both the pdf and a copy of what I've completed so far of the txt file. Your feedback on the latter is requested. Abyssal (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction, I'll get a complete version to you tomorrow afternoon. I'd finish it tonight but my monitor's going bad and it's getting difficult to do anything on the computer because the screen is mysteriously blurring up. Abyssal (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to nag, but if you need me to do anything very soon, please tell me, as I won't have internet access tomorrow. Abyssal (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get started on the "lists of" tonight for the taxa I already have. Hopefully I'll get it sent out to you tonight, but if not, Monday is the soonest I can get it to you. Abyssal (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are we still using that page template? 'Cause if we are, we need the start and end times for the time periods, and I can get to work on that. If you get this before 10:30 AM, please reply immediately 'cause I have to leave for work. Thanks. :) Abyssal (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, personal life is interfering with my ability to get all that geologic time info to you. Hopefully things will clear up. Sorry I haven't gotten all that to you yet. I'll hopefully create all the Lists that were marked with the *** in the txt file I sent you very soon. Also, can we look into being able to use the bot to fill in tables more seriously? I'm facing significant pressure from other paleo-contributors about my unfinished lists. Sorry for the delay. Abyssal (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's good except the status column is for taxonomic status (Valid, Jr. synonym, Nomen dubium), not extant/extinct. If our database doesn't have that info, just use "Valid{{verify source}}" or something. Or maybe just "Valid," since the vast majority of them will be anyway, and it can be tweaked as errors are found. Also, the year should be in the "[[XXXX in paleontology|XXXX]]" format. Other than that it looks really good! Thanks for your hard work. Are you an admin yet? Abyssal (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am finalizing the code right now & will likely file the BRFA tonight or early tomorrow. I'll let you know when I put it up... My RfA still has about 1.5 days left, so about midday Wednesday is when it is scheduled to close. Seems nearly certain to pass at this point though. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
gorgonocephalid= either gorgonocephalida (if you mean the order) or gorgonocephalidae if you mean the family.
Mikrocidarió= no clue :/
Hemieurylae= no clue :/
Megantocrinus = it's at least mentioned in the PBDB.
Priscanermarinus = is fine, has a mention at the PBDB
Diceratograptus = seems fine, a google search turns up many references
I'm not really sure we can confidently link to the names, what if there are multiple Wanners? I can't find who they are anyway, although I'm confident Agassiz is Louis Agassiz. I should hopefully have the stage times completed tonight. Abyssal (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I notice you didn't mention stub creation in the BRFA, is this something we're planning on doing later, or have you decided against it? Also, is there any way I could be an operator? Abyssal (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to worry with the request, I didn't actually do any actually work on the bot itself. As for the operator business, I just had assumed it would be run multiple times (eg. creating stubs in sessions, like 100 today, 500 tomorrow, arbitrary number the next day, etc.). Obviously having two operators would cut down on the total amount of time it would take to run through the database, if that assumption had been correct. Abyssal (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Thaddeus, long time. Bot related question, is there a bot that can create infoboxes for current articles based on a data set? I've been creating pages in Category:Indian women cricketers and adding infoboxes is a tedious process, so was wondering about this. The template in use is {{Infobox cricketer biography}}. About 25-35 pages in this cat weren't created by me, and most of them are missing infoboxes, so rather than add them in manually, I was wondering if there's some way to get a bot to do it. I'm also creating a lot of pages for Indian books, so it'll come in handy for that too. Let me know. cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes19:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is technically possible, but the bot would somehow have to figure out the data to put in each field. Without looking at the specifics, I can say that is probably going to be rather difficult. since we are only talking about ~30 pages here, it is probably more effort to make a bot than just do it manually. However, if there is a reasonable chance of you using it for a much larger number of article (i.e. newly created ones) than let me know. Perhaps there is some database it can pull data from rather than using the article text? That would help a lot.
The novels idea has some possibility since this potentially applies to a very large number of articles. It also has the benefit of me being able to pull data from something like openlibrary.org. I'll definitely think about it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been focused on this cat, but I'd say that over 30% of cricketer bios don't have infoboxes, and there are a lot of pages still left to be created (that pass WP:Athlete) in this area. If you look at Sudha Shah, the references can go to two databases - Cricinfo and CricketArchive (e.g. [11] and [12]) and the entire infobox can be sourced from them, preferably the CricketArchive one as that is more complete for First class stats. Does this hold some promise? If yes, then I can request a couple of people from WP:Cricket to define specs etc. cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes18:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is probably viable. (Assuming it doesn't violate the TOS of the websites in question, which I haven't checked.) Go ahead and generate a spec list. I must warn you, however, that there is a possibility the idea will generate opposition once it gets to BRFA as there are those who feel bots shouldn't be used to "generate content" which this could possibly be seen as. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me read the ToS on both sites carefully. However, if content creation is an issue, can we just use the bot to add infoboxes to existing articles. That way, a human will still be required to create the article and then add to the bot's queue before it does anything. cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes20:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A reply to "Expert opinion needed"
Hi Thaddeus, I read your post on the Project Gastropods talk page and I just wanted to say something about these Sepkoski lists... User JoJan and I struggled for a long time in 2008 to clean up and fix up a simple list of "Prehistoric gastropod genera" generated from one of these lists. One problem that we perceive as living mollusk researchers is that a considerable number of the genera are still extant, some of them very much so. We think that calling them "prehistoric" gives a misleading impression. We finally came up with "List of marine gastropod genera in the fossil record" as a title, which I see has now been changed back to "List of prehistoric marine gastropod genera" by User:Abyssal. Invertzoo (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for the reply. I wonder is there really a reason to call an article "List of prehistoric starfish," for example, instead of just "List of starfish?" --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically these are lists of organisms found in the fossil records. This is bulky nomenclature for a general encyclopedia. I have glanced through all of the lists, and, as I said before, they all contain numerous extant species, not just extant species, but common and well-known extant species, making the current name, using "prehistoric," confusing. I opt for the bulky title over the inaccurate one. The simple title "list of starfish," for some lists, will confuse the fact that some common or very well-known extant species are not well-represented in the fossil record. This may give confusion to the reader: if this is a list of this members of this taxon, why isn't something well-known included?
The lists need to indicate that species found in the fossil record may include extant species. I don't know how to word it well, but it needs to be worded for the general reader. Also, the taxonomy sections are too long. I suggested a streamlined version somewhere.
Also, ThaddeusB, can you put up a single centralized discussion page for this, rather than having it all over various editor talk pages. My IPs change a lot, so my talk pages are not useful. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too be honest, these Seplowski lists are not very useful. We seriously considered deleting our list article altogether about a year ago, but instead we did a huge amount of work to turn it into something vaguely respectable-looking, but still I don't think it is a very useful list at all. It absolutely cannot be called a "list of gastropod genera", and it certainly cannot be called a "list of gastropods". It is not even remotely complete in either of those ways and is unlikely to ever become so. This is why:
The list contains only those marine gastropod genera that have been found in the fossil record. It includes no land or freshwater gastropod genera whatsoever, of which there are a very large number. It includes no sea slug genera whatsoever, of which there are many hundreds. It includes no species of any kind whatsoever. Many gastropod genera have been found in the fossil record, but countless thousands of minute or fragile shelled genera have never been found as fossils and probably never will be. Most genera that have no shells left no trace whatsoever in the fossil record. Even in terms of larger, more solidly shelled species, only a tiny fraction of all the genera that ever lived have been found in the fossil record, which is of course extremely patchy and incomplete by its very nature.
The list we have does however include a number of bogus genera which were first described as gastropods, but which are no longer considered to be gastropods, and which in many cases are not even considered to be mollusks!!
The list is arranged alphabetically, not by family. All in all it is not very useful at all to anyone who is interested in living gastropods. I am not even sure how useful it is to paleontologists who study gastropods.
Useful commentary. The intention was, at some point, to only list valid species from the paleontology database, but use Sepkowski for age ranges. However, the lists appear to include all species from Sepkowski, even though Sepkowski has since been updated.
Sepkowski does contain only marine taxa. I thought the taxa were being pulled from paleoDB, though, not Sepkowski, so I did not catch that the species on the lists were only marine; also I only checked the chitons and some of the crustaceans to any extent, both are outside my area, and my focus is marine, so, I'd miss that the lists were only marine. This is why these lists require your input, Invertzoo!
Thanks for the explanation. I personally had no idea of any of this. Remember, I didn't generate the lists and the bot is only filing them in. To answer the specific question, it would be listed as invalid if it 1) has been renamed\found be an error\etc. - I.E. if the taxa itself is considered invalid or 2) it was demoted to a sub-genus. However, if the genus was moved to another class bu not renamed, it would be listed as valid. I do not know if this is what was intended by Abyssal or not - either he didn't consider it or he didn't feel it was a problem, as I was never informed of this possibility.
If stub creation ever takes place, the stubs wouldn't suffer in this way, as all classification data would be coming from paleodb and not be reliant on an existing Wikipedia table. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hungarian infoboxes
Hi. I was wondering if you could code a bot to successfully transfer infoboxes on Hungarian wikipedia into english but to avoid initial errors like Délegyháza? Bascially I believe all you'd have to do is find out what each paramter means and then get it to display infobox settlement in english like User:Himalayan Explorer/Hungary rather than Magyar. Could you help?Himalayan19:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can help. You are correct that it should be a 1:1 correlation in most cases. I'll take a look into the specifics within a day or two.
P.S. I haven't forgot about the transwiki project - I just put it on hold because I've been on wiki a lot less recently. However, I should be able to finally get to it pretty soon. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
